Allegations Against Family Held Concocted And Untenable | Uttarakhand HC Quashes Entire Dowry Case Citing Abuse Of Legal Process
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Uttarakhand Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the entire proceedings of a criminal case arising from a dowry-related FIR. The Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, especially in light of the petitioners' separation from the complainant and the timing and conduct surrounding the complaint. The charge sheet and FIR were also quashed insofar as the applicants were concerned, and all pending applications stood disposed of.
The matter originated from a matrimonial dispute where the son of the first applicant and the complainant married on 24.11.2020. On 18.08.2021, the complainant lodged an FIR at Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi, alleging that her husband and his family members were demanding a dowry of Rs. 20 lakhs and subjected her to cruelty. The accused included her husband, father-in-law (applicant no.1), sister-in-law (applicant no.3), her husband (applicant no.4), and her mother-in-law (applicant no.2).
The FIR invoked Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners challenged the FIR, the charge sheet dated 24.02.2022, and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.04.2022 before the High Court.
The petitioners submitted that the FIR was lodged based on false and concocted facts. It was stated that the complainant had a quarrelsome nature and had left her matrimonial home voluntarily on 12.04.2021 along with all her belongings. The complaint was allegedly filed after the complainant discovered that the applicant no.1 had disowned both his son and the complainant from his property by a public notice dated 17.06.2021.
Before the FIR, the complainant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 07.07.2021, which she withdrew on 31.07.2021. A second application was filed on 11.08.2021 on similar grounds, but was again withdrawn on 28.08.2021 without informing the magistrate about the registered FIR. The petitioners alleged that this sequence of conduct demonstrated that the FIR was filed out of vindictiveness.
It was further submitted that applicant no.1 had lodged a complaint with the SSP (Senior Citizen Cell) on 29.05.2021 against his son, the complainant, her mother, and her brother. The applicants contended that there was no material showing their involvement in the alleged dowry demand and cruelty.
The defence also argued that applicant no.3 (sister-in-law) was married and residing in her matrimonial home, yet she, her husband (applicant no.4), and even the mother-in-law of applicant no.3 (applicant no.2) were implicated, indicating misuse of the criminal justice system.
They further alleged that the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons mechanically, without applying judicial mind or scrutinising the merits and timeline of events.
The State opposed the petition, supporting the prosecution and affirming that the charge sheet was filed after due investigation. The complainant’s counsel aligned with the State’s argument, asserting that the truth of the allegations could only be tested during trial.
The Court considered the entire chain of events and specifically examined the conduct of the complainant in the backdrop of the family’s estrangement:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material available on record along with keeping in mind the glaring fact and conduct of applicant No.1 lodging of complaint in Senior Citizen Cell against the respondent No.2 much before the lodging of FIR and the chain of events viz. subsequent filing of 156(3) Cr.P.C. application by respondent No.2 and later withdrawing it that too two times, with publication in newspaper regarding disowning of his son and respondent No.2, resulting in subsequent filing of the FIR at the hands of respondent No.2 implicating applicant No.1 and his other distant relatives, and further the fact of applicant No.1 along with the other applicants live at separate places away from respondent No.2".
The Court found that there was no reasonable occasion for the applicants to have committed the alleged offences: "This Court is of the view that there could have no occasion to meet out ill treatment against the respondent No.2 as alleged by her in the FIR."
Regarding the demand for dowry and the alleged benefit to other relatives: "Moreover, as the other applicants except applicant No.1 will avail no benefit, even if demands are met by respondent No.2, there could be no reason to believe that they ill treated respondent No.2 for demand of dowry as alleged by her."
The Court questioned the credibility of the allegations: "This Court is further of the view that the allegations against the applicants are untenable and appear to be concocted."
On the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court stated: "Therefore, making it a fit case of quashing by invoking the inherent powers as provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., not doing so may result to abuse of process of law qua the applicants."
The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings in clear terms: "In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.103 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kapil Kapoor and Others, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi, is hereby quashed qua the applicants, namely, Ashok Kapoor (applicant No.1), Sarita Painuly (applicant No.2), Payal Painuly (applicant No.3) and Nitin Prakash Painuly (applicant No.4)."
Further, the Court quashed both the FIR and the charge sheet: "Resultantly, the Charge Sheet No.10 of 2022 dated 24.02.2022 and FIR No.63 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021 stand quashed qua the above mentioned applicants."
"Interim order dated 21.05.2022 stands vacated."
"Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand; Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate
Case Title: Ashok Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.735 of 2022
Bench: Justice Pankaj Purohit
[Read/Download order]
