Where would one go to satisfy sexual urges...: HC quashes dowry FIR

Quashing dowry charges against a man, the Allahabad high court ruled that the allegations in the case were likely motivated by personal disputes and asked "where would a person go to satisfy their physical and sexual urges" if not their partner in a "morally civilised society."

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed the case against Pranjal Shukla and two others, finding that the evidence presented in the FIR and witness statements did not support the claims of dowry harassment.

The court noted that the primary allegations centred around disagreements related to the couple's sexual relationship and the wife's refusal to engage in certain activities. It concluded that these disputes were not indicative of dowry demands and were more likely driven by personal differences.

"It is apparent that the dispute is with regard to the sexual incompatibility of the parties for which the dispute was there between the parties and due to the said dispute the instant FIR has been lodged by the opposite party making out the false and concocted allegations with regard to the demand of dowry," the court stated.

"If a man were to demand sexual favors from his own wife and vice versa, where would they go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society?" the court questioned.

The FIR had accused Shukla of demanding dowry and engaging in abusive behaviour, including forcing his wife to watch porn and engage in unnatural sex. However, the court found that these allegations were not supported by credible evidence.

As per fact of the case, Meesha Shukla got married to the applicant Pranjal Shukla on December 07, 2015, as per Hindu rites and customs. An FIR was lodged by Meesha alleging demand of dowry by her in-laws namely Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma. However, it has been categorically stated in the FIR that prior to marriage there was no demand of money.

In the FIR, the complainant alleged that Pranjal used to drink and watch porn films and used to insist on unnatural sex with her wife. When she used to object to the same, he did not pay any heed to her objections, it said. The FIR also states that the applicant left her wife and went to Singapore alone.

Counsel for the Pranjal, senior advocate Vinay Saran submitted that allegations in the FIR as well as the statements of the opposite party (wife) are with regard to their physical relationship and the unnatural sexual activities by the applicant.

The assaults which are alleged in the wife's statement are with regard to non-fulfilment of the sexual urges of the applicant and not for any cruelty meted out for demand of dowry.

On this, the court observed, "From the close scrutiny of the FIR as well as the statement of the victim, the torture or any assault, if any, is meted out not for any demand of dowry but on refusal of the opposite party to fulfil the sexual urges of the applicant."

The court in its October 3 order quashed the case against Pranjal stating, "In the considered opinion of this court, the instant FIR is nothing but a concocted story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the applicants herein."