The Supreme Court of India emphasized that criminal laws intended to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment should not be misused to settle personal scores. The apex court highlighted the necessity of a cautious approach while dealing with cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act) to prevent potential abuse of legal provisions.
Background
The case in question involved allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment filed against the husband and in-laws of the complainant. The appellants sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them, but the High Court declined to do so, citing the presence of a prima facie case. Consequently, they approached the Supreme Court.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the Family Court had already granted a divorce to the husband, finding that the complainant had made several baseless allegations against him. The court ruled:
Read Also - Supreme Court Rejects Gurmeet Ram Rahim's Plea to Halt 2015 Sacrilege Trials
"Criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial."
The Supreme Court further observed that while the complainant had made several claims against the in-laws, these allegations were vague and lacked substantial evidence.
"The complainant has not provided any concrete details of dowry demands or acts of cruelty attributable to them. The admitted fact of their separate residence further weakens the complainant's case against them."
Baseless Allegations: The complainant accused her husband and in-laws of demanding dowry and harassing her mentally and physically. However, the court found that these claims lacked specific details and supporting evidence.
Family Court's Divorce Ruling: The Family Court had already determined that the allegations made by the complainant were false and constituted cruelty towards the husband. The Supreme Court noted that false claims made in civil proceedings should not be used to sustain criminal charges.
Separate Residence of In-Laws: Since the complainant’s in-laws resided separately, the court ruled that it was unlikely they were involved in the alleged harassment.
Lack of Prima Facie Case: The Supreme Court held that the allegations against the husband and in-laws did not disclose a prima facie case.
Misuse of Legal Provisions: The court reiterated that laws meant to protect women should not be used to harass innocent individuals or for ulterior motives.
Read Also - Can Citizens Access Election Records? Supreme Court Reviews Rule Change Amid Transparency Concerns
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, ruled:
"In the present case, the allegations against the appellants were devoid of merit, manifestly frivolous, and failed to disclose a prima facie case. The continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice."
Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: P.V. KRISHNABHAT vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1754/2024
