Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The High Court has quashed proceedings against the husband's parents and their distant relative in a dowry harassment case.
The court said the Apex Court has time and again cautioned against the indiscriminate roping in of distant relatives or even the father-in-law and the mother-in-law in matrimonial disputes, unless clear, specific and cogent allegations exist.
The crime relates to the chargesheet filed by the Subramanyanagar police station in Bengaluru for the offences under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sections 4, 6 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
The complainant and her husband had eloped and got married in January 2023. The couple was not living with the in-laws and the latter were unaware about the marriage, the complainant had stated. After the relationship turned sour, the woman filed a complaint in 2024. It was alleged that the man had sexual intercourse forcibly with the complainant before the marriage when she was below 18 years of age. After the marriage, she underwent brutal sexual assault. It was further alleged that the man had been stalking the complainant and threatening to leak intimate images.
The advocate for the petitioners submitted a non-cognizable report (NCR) of October 2021 when the complainant submitted an undertaking before the Subramanyanagar police that she would not trouble the man and his family in future. It was further stated that while her marks sheet is indicative of the fact that she has passed out from the Kerala Board of Public Examinations, in the complaint claimed to have studied in Jain College in Bengaluru.
After perusing the material, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the allegations against the parents and the distant relative are but vague. The elements required to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, particularly the necessity that the offensive conduct occur in public view with a specific intent to humiliate on caste lines, are conspicuously absent, the court said.
“The offences so alleged against the petitioners 2 to 4 in its entirety, crumbles under scrutiny. The complainant herself acknowledges that the marital union of the 1st petitioner and herself was clandestined and unbeknownst to the family. Thus, the very predicate for implicating the parental figures in dowry harassment is palpably missing,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
The court however refused to quash proceedings against the husband saying the allegations are grave and specific. “The assertion is that these acts occurred prior to the marriage and during a time when the complainant was allegedly a minor, which mandates a full-fledged trial,” the court said.