Highlighting that an unexplained delay in starting criminal proceedings can harm cases related to matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court set aside a dowry harassment case filed against a woman’s parents-in-law and sister-in-law.

The Court said that a delay of almost seven years in starting the case, without a proper explanation, raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. It also noted that the claims made against the husband’s relatives were vague and general, with no strong supporting evidence.

As a result, the Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision, which had refused to quash the FIR, and ruled that such weak allegations are not enough to continue criminal proceedings.

Bench on Timely Action:

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that in matrimonial and family disputes, evidence is often limited and relationships are very personal, so reporting offences on time is important for fairness in criminal cases.

The Court also noted that people who claim an offence has been committed should take action without delay, because the law helps those who are alert about their rights.

7-Year Delay Criticised:

Criticising the conduct of the complainant(wife), the court observed that the unexplained delay of about seven years in lodging a complaint/FIR was fatal to the prosecution’s case:

“We find that the citizens who allege commission of an offence should not dawdle on their rights but should rather pursue them in real time in order to achieve the ends of justice as vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt meaning, law protects those who are vigilant about their rights. The delay or lack thereof assumes greater importance in the matrimonial cases or criminal cases between the spouses as due to the personal nature of the allegations and relationship shared between the parties, there is already an insufficiency and inadequacy of evidence to support or rebut the claims and counterclaims. A delay of nearly seven years can therefore be fatal to the prosecution’s case especially when the same has not been properly explained.”

Case Background

The prosecution’s case stated that the complainant was subjected to domestic cruelty and harassment for dowry by her husband and his family (parents-in-law and sister-in-law). They allegedly demanded ₹8.5 lakh and a car as additional dowry, but her parents were unable to meet these demands due to financial constraints.

She also alleged that her husband and in-laws caused her miscarriage, and accused her father-in-law of engaging in sexually inappropriate behaviour. Based on these allegations, she filed an FIR under Sections 498A, 323 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “DP Act”).

The charge sheet was subsequently filed under Sections 323, 354, and 498A IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation relating to miscarriage was dropped due to absence of medical evidence supporting the claim. Aggrieved by the High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal case, the in-laws approached the Supreme Court.

Vague Claims Rejected:

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed that the prosecution’s case rested solely on vague allegations made by the complainant. The Court also found that the complainant was not vigilant in asserting her rights, as the complaint was registered only on 15.11.2023 - more than six years and seven months after the alleged dowry demand.

“A mere statement stating that the accused/appellants herein frequently demanded dowry and harassed the complainant for the same is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings against them when the same are not corroborated or bolstered by other materials placed on record,” observed the bench.

The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, that a “mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.”

Fear Claim Rejected:

Further, the complainant’s claim that she feared her father-in-law, a reputed advocate, was rejected by the court due to the absence of specific instances of threat or restraint over a prolonged period. “merely making such statements claiming that there was sexual misconduct when the same are not substantiated or supported by any material detail in the Final Report filed by the Investigating Officer cannot be allowed to stand in the court of law,” observed the court.

No Interest in Case:

Additionally, the Court noted that the complainant did not seem interested in pursuing the case, as she remained absent from court hearings despite being duly served notice to appear.

“At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that the complainant herself has failed to enter appearance in the present proceedings despite service of notice upon her. The said non-appearance, despite the service of notice being complete upon her, inevitably draws our attention towards an adverse inference that the complainant herself is indifferent and uninterested in contesting the said appeals,” the court said.

In view of the above, the appeal was allowed, and all pending proceedings against the in-laws were quashed.

Case Details: Charul Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.