Dowry Demand - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

1Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Mother-in-Law, Cites Lack of Evidence in Dowry Harassment Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 498-A IPC. It held that the conviction, based solely on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses, was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that cruelty under Section 498-A must be proven by continuous or persistent conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide, which was not established by the prosecution evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the death of Chandra Devi, who was found deceased in her matrimonial home on June 15, 2001. Her father, Dharmanand Joshi (PW-1), filed a complaint the next day, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging. He reported seeing wounds on her body and expressed suspicion about her death, stating that the deceased had previously told him her mother-in-l...

No Endless Cases: Supreme Court Uses Special Power to End Dowry Case After Couple Divorced

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the father-in-law, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held that continuing prosecution after divorce and in the absence of specific, timely allegations amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and the appellant’s son was solemnized in December 2017. By May 2019, marital discord arose, leading the wife to leave the matrimonial home and allege mental and physical cruelty. Both parties attended police-led counselling sessions, which resulted in an agreement to remarry through Hindu rites. However, the wife soon left again and, in July 2019, filed an FIR alleging that her ...

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...