Harassment Allegations Against Husband's Close Relatives Living Separately Or In Another City Need Greater Scrutiny: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that allegations of harassment against the husband's close relatives require careful scrutiny when they live in different cities and rarely or never visit the complainant's residence. 

Such allegations, the Court said, have an “entirely different complexion” and must be examined with “great care and circumspection”.

The Court made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband's mother and uncle. It found that the charge sheet contained no specific or precise allegations against them and that the allegations were “bald in nature”.

Section 498-A IPC penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives. In this context, the Court cautioned that allegations against the husband's relatives require careful scrutiny, particularly when they reside separately from the complainant.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela observed:

“This Court has also considered the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana Others v. State of Telangana and Another, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , and in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal' and Others (referred to supra 2).

In all these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically depicted that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with such complaints arising out of matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment against the husband's close relatives, who have been living in different cities and have never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations made by the complainant are, therefore, required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

The case arose from a complaint by the wife against her husband and his family members. She was married to the husband at Anantapuramu Town according to Christian customs and traditions. Her parents allegedly gave Rs.10 lakh in cash, 10 tulas of gold, a one-tula gold chain and a half-tula ring to the husband as dowry.

After the marriage, she moved to the matrimonial home at Shilpa Township, Kurnool, where she initially lived with her husband and two of his family members. About a week later, the husband's uncle allegedly instigated him and other family members against her, leading to disputes. The husband and his family allegedly subjected her to physical and mental torture, including by comparing her with a more beautiful daughter-in-law and referring to the higher dowry received.

A panchayat was subsequently conducted by her relatives, following which the couple began residing separately at Housing Board Colony, B-Camp, Kurnool Town. Despite this, the husband's mother, uncle and another relative allegedly continued to visit their house and abuse her.

The complainant later gave birth to a daughter. When the child was three months old, she was taken to the matrimonial home, where the husband and his family allegedly demanded an additional Rs.10 lakh and a “Glanji Car” as dowry and drove her out for failing to meet the demand. Despite relatives' attempts to settle the dispute, the accused allegedly reiterated the demand, prompting her to approach the police.

Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation. The criminal proceedings thereafter came to be pending before the trial court.

The petitioners contended that the statements made against them were bald in nature and that there were no specific overt acts attributed to them so as to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC or the other provisions invoked against them.

They specifically pointed to their separate residence. It was submitted that the mother was residing elsewhere along with another family member, while the uncle was residing in a different district, away from the complainant's place of residence. According to the petitioners, this was significant because no specific overt act was attributed to them, and there was no material showing their individual involvement in the alleged acts of harassment.

The petitioners therefore contended that their implication was intended only to harass them and was actuated by an “oblique, vindictive motive”.

It was also submitted that another relative of the husband, who was his brother, was residing separately in Hyderabad for pursuing his education and preparing for the Union Public Service Commission examination. A hall ticket for the examination was placed on record in support of this submission.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation had revealed the commission of the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC and that the same was required to be adjudicated at the stage of trial.

The High Court, however, found that the charge sheet contained no specific or precise allegations against the petitioners, describing them as “bald in nature.”

It accordingly held that the case warranted exercise of its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Upon a cumulative consideration of the facts and the law, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Counsel for the Petitioners: S.V. Ruthvik

Counsel for the Respondent-State: Neelothpal Ganji, Assistant Public Prosecutor