Domestic Violence
Refusal by High Court to quash criminal proceedings—Appeal—In criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complainants and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are not accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family—Implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law—Proceedings quashed.
[Para 35]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 498A & 506 and Sections 3 & 4 of the DP Act—Dowry harassment—Refusal by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground that there are certain allegations against appellants and these are triable issues for which the appellants have to face trial and prove their innocence—Appeal—Gravamen of the plea of appellants that allegations are vague and are of a generalized nature without any specific overt act attributed to them, thus, incapable of being fastened with criminal liability, which unfortunately, the High Court had failed to appreciate—If the evidence of complainant as well as witnesses are taken at their face value, what can be said to have been made out against appellants is that appellants and other members of the family used to pressurize the complainant to act according to the wishes of her husband and mother-in-law which is very generalized allegation devoid of specific particulars—Statements of parents of complainant as annexed in the charge-sheet are carbon copies—Identical statements of witnesses do no inspire confidence of the court—No specific allegations about harassment have been made against appellants in the second complaint—Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice—Material on record do not constitute a prima facie case against appellants—As the appellants do not stay together with complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalized allegations does not appear to be tenable—Appellants have been able to make out a case for interference in these proceedings qua appellants as no prima facie case has been made out against appellants to continue with the criminal proceedings against them and allowing these to continue would amount to abuse of process of the law—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 25 to 39]