The Supreme Court has provided relief to in-laws in a dowry harassment case, quashing criminal proceedings due to the absence of specific evidence linking them to the alleged harassment and second marriage.
The Supreme Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against three in-laws of a woman who had got a police complaint lodged alleging dowry-related harassment, saying the FIR does not attribute any specific act of threat or cruelty to the accused.
The court said the prosecution has also failed to provide any cogent evidence to establish an overt act or intention on the part of the accused in-laws in the alleged second marriage of the husband.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the woman, challenging a November 2024 order of the Kerala High Court.
The high court had refused to quash the proceedings arising out of an FIR lodged in 2016 in the southern state on a complaint from the woman against her husband and the three in-laws.
The woman, who got married in 2007, had alleged that she was subjected to dowry-related harassment from the inception of her marriage and her husband married another woman in May 2013 by suppressing the fact that he was already married.
"At the outset, it is to be noted that the gravamen of the complaint lies against the accused-husband. Specific allegations regarding physical assault, demand of dowry and mental torture have been made against him pertaining to specific dates and incidents," the top court said.
It noted that the allegations against the three in-laws were less serious than active involvement and were mostly about them being present or encouraging the harassment meted out by the husband.
The bench observed that the FIR does not attribute any specific act of demand, threat or physical assault on any identifiable occasion to the complainant's father-in-law and mother-in-law.
It said the sister-in-law was alleged to have received money to buy a flat from the proceeds of the sale of gold, but "no specific act of cruelty or coercion on her part has been alleged".
"In all three instances, the allegations consist of general statements of presence and encouragement rather than specific acts that individually constitute the offence of cruelty under section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the IPC," the bench said.
Regarding the allegations under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the bench referred to an earlier verdict of the top court and said it was held that in order to bring home the charge, the complainant was required to prima facie prove an overt act or omission of the accused in the second marriage ceremony.
Section 494 of the IPC deals with the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or a wife.
"While it has been alleged that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention," the bench said.
It said there was no allegation to suggest that the three in-laws actively participated in, facilitated or encouraged the solemnisation of the second marriage of the complainant's husband.
While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court order and quashed the proceedings against the three.