Vague Allegations & Abuse Of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dowry Case Against Family Of Man Who Committed Suicide After 40 Days Of Marriage

The Delhi High Court has quashed a dowry case against the family of a man who had committed suicide after 40 days of his marriage.

The Court was hearing a Petition seeking quashing of the final report/chargesheet filed in FIR under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “… the allegations made in the Complaint of dowry harassment, are vague which are not borne out from the record and essentially not supported by any cogent evidence. The present Complaint was filed under Section 498A IPC is clearly, a case of the abuse of process of law and merits quashing in the interest of justice. … Therefore, it is evidently a case of vague allegations and clear case of abuse of power and it is not in the interest of justice if the present proceedings are permitted to be continued.”

The Bench said that it is a reverse case where husband has died because of stresses faced by him after marriage and not otherwise.

Advocate Rahul Shukla represented the Petitioners, while APP Utkarsh represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The deceased husband got married to the Respondent-wife in 2016 as per Hindu customs and rites. The Petitioners were sister and parents of the deceased and according to them, the marriage was simple and sober and not a single penny of dowry was sought from the wife i.e., the Complainant. On the second day of ‘vidai’, the couple left for Malaysia for their honeymoon and returned to Pune where deceased worked as a Manager in a company. The Petitioners claimed that immediately after returning from the honeymoon, some differences arose between the couple and the deceased started living in a depressed, disturbed, and frustrated state. Allegedly, the parents of the wife used to threaten and force him to stay with her. They allegedly terrorized the Petitioners and the deceased by threatening to implicate the entire family in a false and frivolous case of dowry and domestic violence and also to cause harm to the deceased.

Deceased being mentally and physically harassed by the unwarranted acts and persistent threats extended by the Complainant and her parents to him, committed suicide in Pune, in the midnight, i.e. barely after 40 days of their marriage. The Complainant left the matrimonial home immediately after the cremation and since then, she never came back. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed a complaint seeking fair investigation in this matter. However, after about 2 months, the wife filed a complaint against the Petitioners alleging mental torture on account of demand of dowry and hatching a conspiracy and abetting her deceased husband to commit suicide and spoiling her personal life. Resultantly, the Petitioners approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “Instant is an unfortunate case where the marriage did not survive even for 40 days and the husband committed suicide resulting in sour relations followed by ugly litigation.”

The two legal issues raised were; firstly, the alleged offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of Courts in Delhi; and secondly, whether on merits, the FIR and consequent Chargesheet is liable to be quashed, in view of it being an abuse of the process of the Court.

Territorial Jurisdiction

In view of the first issue, the Court noted that the fundamental principle for territorial jurisdiction is that such Court within whose jurisdiction the crime or any part thereof or has continued, would have the jurisdiction.

“S. 179 further provides that the court where the consequence of the offence has ensued would also have the jurisdiction. … Applying these principles, especially to the matrimonial disputes, it emerges that the acts of cruelty may be committed upon a woman in a particular jurisdiction but the consequence, impact and trauma is carried by her to the place where she sets up her abode or takes shelter”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the consequence of harassment manifests itself in the place where she goes to live after separation and it can also not be overlooked that even though there may be physical separation, but the relation continues even if it is acrimonious and is by way of various complaints that may follow.

“In the present case, the Respondent was allegedly subjected to dowry demands and cruelty, and was subsequently sent back to her parental home in Delhi with an assurance by the husband that he would call her back by 14.4.2016, though he committed suicide on 13.04.2016. Even thereafter, according to the Complainant, all her endeavours to connect to the in-laws or to go back, proved to be futile. She was allegedly threatened that she would not be taken back”, it said.

The Court, therefore, held that it cannot be said at this stage that the High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction.

Whether there are any grounds for quashing of Chargesheet?

With respect to the second issue, the Court observed, “The Complaint itself, when considered as a whole, does not reflect any act of harassment or cruelty against Petitioner No.1, as envisaged under Section 498A IPC.”

The Court further remarked that these are bald assertions made only for the purpose of making the Complaint under Section 498A IPC.

“These aforesaid WhatsApp chats, on which Resopndent No.2 herself has relied, also do not show that there was any kind of harassment being meted out by deceased. In fact, these conversations reflect that there was an underlying stress between brother and sister, who in any case was contemplating to commit suicide, about which his sister was aware and her helplessness is evident from her remarks that with the prevailing atmosphere, the entire family may commit suicide”, it also noted.

The Court added that the deceased was under his own mental stress, while the wife was at her parental house with her mother and there is nothing in the WhatsApp chats from where it can be inferred that there was any stress on the deceased on account of any dowry demands being made by his parents or that he had conveyed any such demand to wife.

“Clearly, these WhatsApp chats also do not in any way show that there was any dowry demand or harassment of Respondent No.2. Rather, what emerges from these chats is that it was the husband who was under tremendous stress and was compelled to commit suicide. … It is also pertinent to mention that immediately after the last rites of the husband performed on 16.04.2016, she along with her parents returned to her parental home in Delhi”, it said.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the Petitioners.

Cause Title- ABC & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8910)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Rahul Shukla, Ramandeep Singh, Bachita Shukla, Nimrit Bhalla, Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan, Aditya Chaudhary, and Aditi Chaudhary.

Respondents: APP Utkarsh, Advocates Tribindh Kumar, and Bineet Pandey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment