Specific dowry-harassment allegations requiring trial preclude quashing a Section 304-B IPC prosecution.

The deceased, Chennaboina Soundarya, married Accused No.1 on 10.11.2019 and died by suicide at her matrimonial home on 25.01.2023, within seven years of marriage.

Her father alleged that, after an initial period of marriage, the accused subjected her to mental and physical harassment, demanded additional dowry of ₹10,00,000, and insisted that she surrender her monthly salary of ₹30,000.

Crime No.83 of 2023 was initially registered under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 109 IPC. During investigation, after a further representation by the deceased’s father, the offence was altered to Section 304-B IPC.

After recording statements of LWs.1 to 26, the Investigating Officer filed the final report, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as S.C.No.626 of 2023.

Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.3 to 6 invoked Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the proceedings.

The Court applied Section 304-B IPC, which requires a woman’s death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and proof that, soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with a dowry demand.

Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act permits a presumption of dowry death only after the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of proximate cruelty or harassment for dowry, as explained in Sham Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 9 SCC 759.

The Court relied on Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 1 SCC 797, for the principle that a suicide note is not an “encyclopaedia of the entire situation” and must be assessed with the surrounding evidence.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 947, inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings are to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose an offence, are legally barred, inherently improbable, frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Court found that the prosecution material contained specific allegations that the petitioners demanded additional dowry of ₹10,00,000 and the deceased’s salary, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and continued such conduct after she returned to the matrimonial home in May 2022.

Since the deceased died by suicide at her matrimonial home on 25.01.2023, approximately three years after marriage, the temporal requirement under Section 304-B IPC was prima facie satisfied.

The statements of the deceased’s family members, neighbours, the person who had intervened in the matrimonial dispute, and other witnesses were sufficient at the threshold stage to disclose a case requiring trial.

The Court held that the absence of the petitioners’ names in the suicide note did not conclusively exonerate them, particularly because the note had to be evaluated alongside the allegations and surrounding circumstances.

Determining the credibility of those allegations or their evidentiary value would require a trial and could not be undertaken in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

The petitions under Section 528 BNSS were accordingly dismissed, and the proceedings in S.C.No.626 of 2023 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, were permitted to continue. Pending miscellaneous applications were closed.