‘Even acquittal can’t erase scars’: SC slams misuse of dowry laws

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned courts against the indiscriminate prosecution of a husband’s relatives in dowry harassment cases, rueing the growing tendency to implicate entire families in domestic disputes.

A bench comprising justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal underscored the long-lasting psychological and social scars of individuals who endure wrongful criminal trials, even if they are ultimately acquitted.

Drawing from its 2010 judgment in Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr, the bench emphasised that exaggerated and general allegations are common in matrimonial disputes, often leading to the unwarranted implication of distant relatives.

“Criminal trials lead to immense suffering for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy,” noted the court, calling for heightened judicial scrutiny in such cases.

It noted that the term “relative” under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) -- a provision intended to protect women from cruelty in marital homes, popularly called the anti-dowry law -- lacks a precise statutory definition and should be interpreted narrowly to include individuals closely related by blood, marriage or adoption. Section 498A has been replaced by Section 86 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The bench emphasised that courts must carefully consider whether relatives residing in different cities, who have minimal or no involvement in the complainant’s life, are being implicated merely to pressure the primary accused.

Referencing judgments such as Geeta Mehrotra & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar (2022), the top court reiterated its stance against implicating relatives based on “general and omnibus allegations”. It clarified that casual references to family members without evidence of active involvement in the alleged harassment do not justify cognisance.

“We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature,” said the bench, citing the court rulings in previous cases.

Allegations of harassment by husband’s close relatives living in different cities, who rarely, if ever, visited the complainant, require a different level of scrutiny, according to the bench.

It further stressed the judiciary’s “irrecusable duty” to assess whether the allegations against a relative amount to over-implication or exaggeration. The bench invoked the landmark judgment in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992), which delineates circumstances under which courts can quash frivolous proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

“One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused,” it maintained.

The judgment was delivered in a case involving allegations of harassment against a distant relative of the husband. The complainant accused the wife of her husband’s cousin, who lived in a different city, of dowry harassment. The FIR and subsequent investigation yielded no material evidence against the accused, prompting the high court to quash proceedings, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment on Tuesday. “It is evident that making them face the trial based on the allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing but an abuse of process of court,” said the bench.

The court’s observations align with several earlier rulings that have sought to curb the misuse of Section 498-A. In Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court took a firm stance on the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of individuals based on unsubstantiated complaints under this section. The court had held that arrest in such cases should not be automatic and must follow a thorough investigation to prevent the harassment of innocent individuals.

Further, in Rajesh Sharma & Ors Vs State of UP (2017), the court recommended the constitution of family welfare committees to scrutinise complaints before any action is taken by the police, signalling the judiciary’s efforts to prevent misuse of the law. The decision aimed to reduce the number of false cases being filed under the guise of dowry or cruelty.

Subsequently, in Satender Kumar Antil’s judgment in 2022, the Supreme Court issued a string of guidelines that require police officers to record in writing before arresting the accused in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years and issue of a proper notice before a suspect is called for questioning; mandate automatic grant of bail in cases where the accused was not arrested during investigation; recommend adoption of a liberal view in cases pertaining to women and the infirm; and direct disposal of bail applications within two weeks and pre-arrest bail applications within six weeks. The court is currently monitoring the compliance with its directions against routine arrests by state police and central agencies. In these proceedings, the Supreme Court has also directed the Union government to inform it whether a new law to facilitate the grant of bail is in the works, as it pushes for objectivity and accountability in the criminal justice system to prevent needless arrests.