Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing of FIR for alleged dowry harassment, specifically denial of food and mental harassment, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., held that that the allegations in the FIR, including withholding food and demanding dowry, constitute specific acts of harassment that warrant further investigation. The Court dismissed the application for quashing the FIR, emphasising the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter.
“Not providing food to the married woman on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry would certainly amount to physical and mental harassment.”
In the instant matter, the petitioners are family members of the respondent 2 (wife) against whom an FIR was lodged by the respondent. Prior incidents include allegations of the husband (applicant 1) monitoring the respondent’s social media accounts without consent and lodging of multiple complaints by the husband alleging extramarital affairs of the respondent. The respondent alleged dowry harassment, specifically denial of food and mental harassment, and contended that she has been residing separately from the petitioners for the last year. The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Harda, District Harda for offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Court opined that denying food to the married woman on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry amounts to physical and mental harassment. The Court stated that “compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry would certainly amounts to mental harassment, punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.” The Court held that the specific allegations of denying food, habit of hiding eatables and mental harassment against the petitioners, particularly applicants 2 and 3, are not vague and constitute offences under Section 498-A of the IPC. While citing Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Court emphasised that distant relatives should not be implicated in dowry harassment cases without specific material. However, in this case, the allegations against all petitioners were specific and not vague.
The Court rejected the argument that the FIR was filed as a counter blast to the divorce petition, stating that the pendency of civil proceedings does not affect criminal proceedings and the allegations in the FIR are separate from the divorce proceedings. The Court stated that “the findings recorded by the civil court are not binding on the criminal court, and the criminal case has to be decided on the basis of allegations made therein. The degree of proof in civil case and criminal case are different.” Additionally, the Court asserted that the previous instances of discord in the relationship, including allegations of adultery made by petitioner 1 against respondent, which if proven false, would constitute cruelty.
The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and the strained relationship between the parties. Considering the severity of the allegations and the legal precedents, the Court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for interference.
[Nitish Umariya v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1962, order dated 04-03-2024]
*Judgment by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Nishant Agrawal, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri K.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
