The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings for dowry harassment against the family members of a former husband, holding that they were unnecessarily implicated in the case, with no specific allegations made against them.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that the complaint, filed by the woman nearly three years after an ex-parte divorce, focused mainly on the husband’s alleged ill-treatment. The only reference to the husband’s relatives concerned an isolated incident dated August 16, 2015.

"By then, an ex-parte divorce had already been granted, and the appellants, being mere relatives of the husband, cannot be prosecuted under the law,” the Court noted. "Allowing the trial to proceed against them would amount to a vexatious prosecution solely on account of their relationship with the husband."

The Court relied on the precedent set in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2012), which cautioned against the routine implication of the husband’s relatives in dowry harassment cases under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The bench emphasized that, apart from a "bald statement" against the relatives, all other allegations were directed solely at the husband. “There is no justification for why the appellants would attempt reconciliation on August 16, 2015, when the divorce had already been finalized on May 31, 2012,” the order read.

Background of the Case

The appellants had challenged an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed their plea to quash the summoning order issued by a Trial Court on April 23, 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, without addressing the petition on its merits.

Kumar Saurabh and Charusmita were married on June 17, 2010, and lived briefly in Kota, Rajasthan. In October 2010, Charusmita left the matrimonial home, taking her belongings including stridhan, and began living with her parents.

Following unsuccessful efforts to resume marital life, Kumar Saurabh filed for divorce, which was granted ex-parte by a Family Court in Kota on May 31, 2012, as the wife failed to appear despite receiving notice.

Nearly three years later, the woman filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, seeking registration of a criminal case. The matter was treated as a complaint, and the Magistrate, after recording statements, issued a summoning order against the relatives on April 23, 2018.

The appellants — Kumar Saurabh’s mother Sushila, brothers Shailendra Dablu and Kulshreshtha Upadhyay, sister Seema, and another sister Kanak — then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the summoning order. The High Court dismissed the plea without entering into the merits.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that since the marital relationship had already ended, the relatives could not be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Case Title: Sushila v. State of Uttar Pradesh