Retaliatory dowry proceedings filed during a related investigation may be quashed as an abuse of process.

The complainant alleged that his daughter married petitioner No. 3 on 18 April 2016 and that, before the marriage, petitioner No. 3 demanded an Alto car, supported by the other petitioners.

He further alleged that petitioner No. 3 left the next morning after the demand was not met.

On 19 April 2016, petitioner No. 3 lodged an FIR alleging that the complainant and others had kidnapped and assaulted him to force the marriage; after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken against them.

The complainant filed the present complaint on 16 May 2016.

The Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 18 July 2018.

The petitioners sought quashing, contending that the complaint was a retaliatory counterblast and that the allegations against petitioners 1, 2 and 4 were general and omnibus.

1. Whether the order taking cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should be quashed as an abuse of the process of the Court.

2. Whether the timing and circumstances of the complaint, alongside the prior FIR and the nature of the allegations, showed that the prosecution was malicious or vexatious.

The alleged offences were Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners relied on the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, as grounds for quashing proceedings.

The judgment applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, their continuation would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision governing the quashing jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the complaint was filed about a month after the alleged occurrence and while the investigation of petitioner No. 3’s earlier FIR was underway.

It also considered that the FIR had resulted in a charge-sheet and cognizance against the complainant and others, and that one co-accused had been arrested on the date the FIR was registered.

The Court viewed the complaint’s timing as indicating that it had been filed to exert pressure and observed that, although eight witnesses were proposed, only the complainant and two family members were examined.

Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

It quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 18 July 2018 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2016 and allowed the application.