Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by the deceased’s father under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 Constitution against the impugned order dated 3-4-2017 vide which the District and Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) discharging Respondents 3 to 5 under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna J., finding no merit in the petition, dismissed it stating that merely because the deceased woman was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The Court stated that there was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling respondents’ demand for money.
Background:
The deceased’s father made a complaint of dowry harassment and death of his daughter vide FIR under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of IPC. His daughter had married Respondent 3, as per Hindu rites and customs on 5-12-2010 and was blessed with 2 daughters aged 2.5 years and 40 days at the time of her demise.
The deceased’s father submitted that he had spent about Rs 4 Lacs on her marriage, which was beyond his financial means, as he was an autorickshaw driver. He had arranged the money from his friends, relatives and family members. The deceased’s father submitted that after marriage, his daughter was continuously humiliated and tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry and demands of gold bracelet, bike and other articles were made from his daughter. He had been regularly meeting their demands. but she was continuously harassed and tortured. However, when the demands were not met, his daughter was mentally tortured because of which she died.
On 3-4-2014 at about 11 pm, the deceased’s father received a call from the deceased’s father-in-law that the deceased had fallen unwell and had been taken to a hospital. The deceased’s father reached the hospital and was informed by the doctor that his daughter has died. Thus, a FIR was registered under Sections 304-B/498-A/34 of IPC.
The MM vide order dated 27-6-2016 concluded that the allegations were vague and there were no specific instances or description of alleged demand for dowry or harassment. In the absence of specific allegations regarding harassment related to dowry demands or any willful conduct likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or cause her grave injury, no case was held to be made out against Respondents 3 to 5, and they were discharged.
The order of the MM was challenged and the District and Sessions Judge in the order dated 3-4-2017, concurred with the MM that there was no evidence to prima facie show the harassment of the deceased on account of dowry. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed.
Case Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that based on the postmortem report her death was due to pneumonia, a natural cause and not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons. The Court assessed the allegations in detail and observed that it was quite evident from the first statement of the deceased’s father that no details of the alleged harassment of the daughter were mentioned. The Court noted that the second document was the Complaint that was made by the deceased’s father where several other allegations regarding money/gold bracelets and motorcycles were made. The Court observed that no complaint for same was lodged at ITO Women Cell, nor any specific incidents were mentioned in the statement given under Section 164 CrPC by the deceased’s father. Further, the deceased’s father did not give any date or proof of giving any money, especially when he himself had stated that he was an auto driver and had financial constraints. Such bald assertions could not be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment in the given situation.
It was claimed by the deceased’s father that when his daughter became pregnant for the second time, he brought her home in the fifth month due to alleged threats from her in-laws to kill her, if she gave birth to another girl. However, after the deceased gave birth to the second daughter, he sent her back to her matrimonial home. The Court noted this as a contradiction, observing that no father would leave the daughter in the matrimonial home in the face of such imminent threat. It was further alleged that Rs 2 lakhs was consistently demanded in the name of both children and that the deceased’s father sold a plot giving Rs 1 lakh to meet their demand. The Court observed that the the deceased’s father failed to provide any documentary proof of the plot’s ownership, sale, or the date of payment. Given that the deceased died within 40 days of childbirth, the Court observed that cogent evidence about the alleged demands and payment should have been disclosed by the deceased’s father. In its absence, the claims amounted to bald assertions insufficient to establish harassment.
Additionally, the statement of the deceased’s brother and sister under Section 161 CrPC, mentioned the deceased crying and being harassed by in-laws during a Holi visit. The Court observed that merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The statements of the brother and sister of the deceased in no way established prima facie that the deceased was being harassed by her in laws for meeting their demands.
The Court further observed that, in the petitioner’s complaint apart from vague assertions that there was a constant demand for money, there were no specific incidents which were detailed. There was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling their demands for money.
The Court observed that the allegations made in the complaint and witness statements primarily reflected the deceased’s father’s grief over his daughter’s death, which he believed resulted from cruelty by the in-laws. However, the District and Sessions Judge had already concluded that the death was due to natural causes, not dowry-related, and had accordingly discharged Respondents 3 to 5 under Section 304-B IPC. This discharge order was never challenged and hence could not be re-agitated now. The MM had rightly held that no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out, which was upheld by the District and Sessions Judge. The Court thus found no merit in the present petition, dismissed it along with any pending applications.
[Gainda Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), CS(COMM) 832 of 2025, decided on 13-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Gurbaksh Singh & Arjun Dhamija, Advocates
For the Respondents: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Rahul Rathi, PS: Sangam Vihar M. T. Malik and Arnab Malik, Advocates
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
