‘Common practice to implicate husband’s family’: Allahabad High Court dismisses plea to summon in-laws in dowry case

Justice Anil Kumar-X rejected the woman’s plea to summon additional accused.

Section 319 provides that if, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

Woman’s allegations

• The petitioner had argued that all witnesses consistently alleged that the accused persons demanded additional dowry and harassed her over the demand.
• She contended that despite corroboration of the allegations in witness statements, the trial court had dismissed her application without proper reasoning.
• It was further argued that the criminal revision plea against the said dismissal was also dismissed.
• The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason for not summoning the proposed accused, if the allegations in the statements were fully corroborated by the version made in the complaint.
• Opposing the plea, counsel for the private respondents argued that only general and omnibus allegations had been levelled against the relatives.
• It was submitted that the proposed accused had no involvement in the alleged offence and that specific allegations surfaced only at a later stage of the proceedings.

‘Bald allegations’

After examining the records, the high court noted that the allegations related to dowry demand and subsequent harassment.

The court observed that all the proposed accused persons were close relatives of the husband, namely the brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law of the complainant.

It remarked that the complaint contained only omnibus and bald allegations against them, which did not inspire confidence.

“Making omnibus and bald allegations against all the family members of the husband does not inspire confidence,” the court said.

Holding that the findings of the trial court and revisional court did not warrant interference, the court upheld both orders and dismissed the plea.

“The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, which were subsequently upheld by the learned Revisional Court, do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court are upheld, and the present petition is dismissed,” the court ordered.

Rise in dowry death cases

Recently, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over the rising instances of dowry deaths, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, noting that young women are often subjected to harassment or killed within their matrimonial homes for dowry.

The court made the observation while cancelling the bail granted to a man accused in a dowry death case, noting that the Allahabad High Court committed an “egregious error” in releasing him despite serious allegations.

“All that we want to convey is that a bail court at any level should remain very careful to ensure that its order like the one impugned before us should not be seen or read by the society at large that the courts are taking serious crimes against women very lightly,” the apex court had said.

It noted that despite being given better educational opportunities and encouragement to be independent, women continue to bear the brunt of dowry demands even after marriage.

The court remarked that an written norm dictates Indian marriages wherein if the groom earns a handsome salary, the bride’s family often feels pressured to provide a larger dowry to avoid any displeasure on his part.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the victim’s father and cancelled the bail of the accused.