Omnibus allegations against in-laws, unsupported by the victim’s statement, do not justify continued criminal proceedings.

The case arose from Khagaria P.S. Case No. 319 of 2015, registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the father of the deceased, Shweta Kumari, and referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Shweta Kumari had married petitioner no. 2, Gopal Kumar, on 2 May 2008. The prosecution alleged that her husband and other family members subjected her to cruelty, demanded dowry, forcibly administered medicines resulting in miscarriage, and failed to provide financial or medical assistance when she developed serious health complications.

She was treated at hospitals in Begusarai, Patna and SGPGIMS, Lucknow, and died during treatment on 25 May 2015.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 323 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners sought discharge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.; however, the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Khagaria, rejected their application on 5 March 2018 in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 2016.

They consequently approached the High Court seeking quashing of that order and the consequential proceedings.

1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioners’ applications for discharge under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. disclosed sufficient material to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5?

2. Whether the allegations and materials collected during investigation constituted a legally sufficient basis for proceeding against the family members other than the husband, particularly in view of the deceased’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the post-mortem findings?

3. Whether the proceedings against petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were liable to be quashed as vexatious or malicious in the circumstances recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal?

The Court considered Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C., which govern discharge of an accused and framing of charge in a sessions case, respectively.

It also considered the substantive allegations under Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 323 and 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations and materials, even if accepted on their face, do not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, or where the prosecution is vexatious or malicious, as recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

At the stage of discharge, the court must assess whether the materials disclose sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; however, the present decision turned on the absence of specific and substantive allegations against the petitioners other than the husband.

The Court found that although the deceased had been treated at several hospitals, no complaint had been made against petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 or 5 during that period.

The post-mortem report attributed the death to severe anaemia, septicaemia and renal failure resulting in shock and cardio-respiratory failure, rather than specifically linking the death to acts committed by those petitioners.

Most importantly, the deceased’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. primarily alleged that her husband demanded dowry, administered medicines to terminate her pregnancy and assaulted her.

The allegations against the remaining family members were general in nature, principally relating to their failure to arrange or finance treatment, and did not specifically allege dowry demand or torture on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands.

On this material, the Court concluded that the prosecution case substantially implicated the husband alone and did not disclose sufficient specific grounds for continuing proceedings against the other family members.

The Court therefore exercised its quashing jurisdiction consistently with the principles in Bhajan Lal.

The proceedings against petitioner no. 2, Gopal Kumar, the husband of the deceased, were permitted to continue.

The application was accordingly allowed.