Bombay HC Reiterates Law Against Dowry 'A Shield, Not An Assassin's Weapon,' Quashes FIR Against 11

The Bombay HC in a recent order has reiterated Supreme Court's observation that Section 498A of IPC which deals with cruelty by in-laws on married women, is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon

The court found that the estranged couple were parties to the decision of the Family Court where they signed for divorce by mutual consent

The Bombay High Court in a recent order has reiterated Supreme Court's observation that Section 498A of IPC which provides for law against dowry and deals with cruelty by in-laws on married women, is intended to be used as a shield and not an assassin's weapon. The high court quashed FIR against 11 members of family who had moved the court after FIR was filed against them by the estranged wife of their son alleging demand of dowry and cruelty by in-laws.

The court found that the complainant woman filed the FIR after agreeing to the mutual consent terms for Divorce in a Family Court. The court said that this complaint by the woman was "a pressure tactic," against her husband and his family members including the spouses of her sisters-in-law. The court dismissed the FIRs as an abuse of the process of law.

Senior Lawyer Abha Singh who appeared for the aggrieved husband and his family contended in court that the FIR by the woman was a complete abuse of the process of law which was designed to intimidate and harass the Husband and his family by endangering their lives, liberty, and respect in society. Singh further argued that the FIR was an afterthought and suffered from "unexplainable delay."

Singh presented in court the Consent Terms executed by the husband and the complainant wife, which form part and parcel of the Decree of divorce granted by the jurisdictionally competent Court. The consent terms had a list of articles and jewelry belonging to the wife which were returned to her.

"The FIR is thus in the teeth of these consent terms and indicates a degree of cunning and mala fide on the part of the complainant. The complainant has also accepted the return of her belongings including jewelry comprising her streedhan. Taking away her jewelry was one of her main allegations in the FIR and accepting return of the same as one of the conditions of divorce indicates an agreement to settle the matter on mutual terms concluding in a decree of divorce," the high court ruled.

Singh further placed previous verdicts by the top court to substantiate her case against misuse of Section 498A.

The court found that the estranged couple were parties to the decision of the Family Court where they signed for divorce by mutual consent and the woman had also accepted Rs 1 lakh as settlement.

"Furthermore, the allegation made against the sisters of the Petitioner No.1 (husband) and their spouses are absolutely vague and obscure, which makes them highly unbelievable. They seem to have been roped in simply to harass the entire family of the Petitioner No.1 and make him succumb to certain demands. In the above backdrop, allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed for an offense under Section 498A etc., of IPC shall surely constitute an abuse of process of law." the high court ruled.

The court further opined that the allegations by the woman regarding cruelty inflicted upon her by husband and in-laws by taking away her streedhan and the other allegations were not sustainable in law.

"It clearly appears that the filing of the criminal complaint post filing of consent terms in the Family Court, is a pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant against her husband and his family members including the spouses of her sisters-in-law, which is clearly an abuse of the process of law, and is liable to be quashed in its totality," the high court ruled. 

The high court while passing the order noted that in Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the object of the provision against dowry is prevention of the dowry menace. The bench stated that the precedents of Supreme Court clarify that, in certain circumstances, the High Court is entitled to consider other materials while exercising its quashing powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C.