New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case filed against a man’s parents, accused of dowry harassment and causing their daughter-in-law’s miscarriage.
On December 20, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan overturned the Bombay High Court’s order dated January 23, 2020, which had dismissed a plea by Digamber (father-in-law) and his wife seeking to quash the FIR (first information report).
The bench observed that the case was initiated with an ulterior motive to pressure the husband into consenting to a divorce and was weaponized in a personal dispute.
The FIR, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station in Latur, accused the couple under Sections 498-A (cruelty against women by their husbands or their relatives), 312 (a woman is voluntarily caused to miscarry), 313 (offence of causing a miscarriage without the consent of the woman) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
The court remarked, “Merely stating that cruelty was committed by the appellants without specific allegations does not constitute an offence under Section 498-A of IPC.”
The bench regarding the miscarriage allegations, noted that the claims lacked prima facie evidence when compared with medical statements.
It highlighted that even if the accusations were taken at face value, they did not establish a case against the appellants.
The couple’s son, also an accused in the case, passed away during the proceedings.
The complaint, filed by the daughter-in-law, alleged that her in-laws physically and mentally harassed her for giving birth to two daughters after her marriage in 2006.
She claimed that on November 28, 2016, her in-laws coerced her into eating something that led to a miscarriage.
In their defence, the appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was a tactic to force their son into agreeing to a mutual consent divorce.
He emphasized that the allegations were vague, lacked specific instances of harassment, and were not mentioned in the divorce notice.
The state and complainant’s counsels contended that the FIR warranted a trial court’s examination, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating the allegations were imprecise and lacked supporting details.
The bench further noted the absence of specific roles or incidents attributed to the appellants, concluding that the claims were general and unsupported.
Citing precedents such as Dara Lakshmi Narayana versus State of Telangana (2024) and Jayedeepsinh Chavda vs State of Gujarat (2024), the court reiterated that cruelty under Section 498-A requires intent to cause grave harm or provoke suicide.
The court also dismissed the miscarriage charges under Sections 312 and 313 IPC, stating that the appellants lived far from Latur and there was no evidence suggesting they knew about the complainant’s pregnancy.
It emphasized that key facts surrounding the pregnancy and alleged poisoning were missing from the FIR.
The bench criticized the High Court’s approach, asserting that it should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the case.
“This was a clear abuse of the process of law aimed at pressuring the son into consenting to divorce on the complainant’s terms,” the court said.
Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.
UNI
