Relatives’ prosecution for dowry harassment cannot continue absent prima facie material establishing their role.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging dowry demands and harassment by the petitioners and her husband, accused No. 1.

The prosecution alleged that Rs. 5,00,000 and ten tolas of gold were paid at marriage, followed by a demand for 25 tolas of gold and a car.

It also alleged that on 28 April 2024 accused No. 1 assaulted respondent No. 2’s mother with an iron rod; the wound certificate recorded a simple injury.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 236/2024, registered for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The High Court considered whether the charge-sheet material disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court recognised that a quashing petition does not permit a mini-trial, but the Court may examine the charge-sheet material, including witness statements, to determine whether it discloses prima facie material requiring the accused to stand trial.

Applying Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the material does not make out a case against the accused and their continuation would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court found that the petitioners were residents of Haveri District, while the alleged assault occurred at Jewargi and was attributed to accused No. 1.

The prosecution’s witness, CW11, was not an eyewitness to the alleged dowry payment, subsequent demand or earlier harassment; his information on those matters came from respondent No. 2.

Nor did the material identify the petitioners as participating in the 28 April 2024 assault.

Although the Court acknowledged that it could not conduct a mini-trial, it concluded that the available material disclosed no prima facie basis to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged dowry-related offences or harassment.

It expressly clarified that the order did not affect the merits of the case against accused No. 1.