The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside proceedings against a family of six in a dowry harassment case, terming the charges “frivolous” and “motivated”. The Court highlighted contradictions in the complainant’s version and flagged serious flaws in the police investigation, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered by a woman who alleged cruelty and harassment for dowry after her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed she was driven out of her matrimonial home within two months and accused her husband and his family members of mental and physical abuse, including a demand for ₹20 lakh.
However, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, after reviewing the chargesheet, found significant inconsistencies in the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant had suppressed her own employment details — she was working as a senior executive at a Pune-based health insurance company — while accusing the husband and his family of harassment and financial demands.
The Judges observed that the couple had spent part of their short-lived marriage on a honeymoon in Manali and that the complainant’s own travel records and admission contradicted several of her allegations.
“A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused; pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing a pillow on her face,” the Bench said, adding, “The applicants are well-educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter.”
Criticising the police investigation, the Bench noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations by visiting the matrimonial homes in Kharghar and Manmad. Instead, a panchnama was carried out at the complainant’s father’s house in Nanded with no meaningful corroboration of her claims.
“This is a classic example of misuse of Section 498-A,” the Bench declared. “Nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigations in such cases. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.”
The Court also noted that many of the statements recorded from the complainant’s family appeared to be “copy-paste” versions lacking substance or independent verification.
Quashing the criminal proceedings, the Judges invoked their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterating that courts must intervene in cases where prosecution appears to be driven by vengeance or is manifestly groundless.
“The institution of criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive can destroy lives,” the Bench noted, emphasising the need for caution in both filing and investigating matrimonial complaints.
