The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal case against a man and his parents concerning allegations of dowry harassment and assault made by his wife’s brother. The court determined that since the couple is now divorced, continuing the legal proceedings would constitute an abuse of judicial process. Additionally, it referenced findings from a family court that indicated the wife’s cruelty had been established, while no such evidence was found against the husband.
According to the court’s ruling, the wife’s brother had initiated a complaint in the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court located in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, back in 2015. Meanwhile, a family court in Gurugram had ruled in favor of the husband in a divorce case he filed, with the judgment delivered in 2021.
Justice Brij Raj Singh, presiding over the case, stated in his ruling on April 8 that after reviewing the evidence and circumstances—including observations from the family court, the cross-examination of the wife, and the lengthy delay in filing the complaint—it was clear that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband and his family would be a misuse of legal processes.
The husband’s parents, asserting their innocence, approached the high court to challenge the CJM’s order from August 14, 2015, which allowed for the case regarding mental and physical cruelty, dowry harassment, assault, and criminal intimidation to proceed. The case was brought against them by the wife’s brother. Their appeal in the Additional District Judge (ADJ) court was dismissed on March 8, 2017.
The petitioners’ attorney argued that Amit Khanna and Shilpa were married on March 9, 2002, in New Delhi, and that they had never resided with Amit’s parents in Bahraich. Consequently, claims of dowry demands and physical assault by the parents were unfounded. The attorney also pointed out that the alleged incident took place on June 5, 2013, but the complaint was not filed until July 28, 2015, indicating an unjustifiable delay of nearly two years without explanation. The trial court failed to address this significant delay, despite it being clearly stated in the applicants’ recall application submitted on February 20, 2016.
Furthermore, it was highlighted that following the alleged incident, neither the woman nor her brother reported the matter to the police or sought a medical examination, raising questions about the credibility of the claims. Evidence was presented showing that on the day of the incident, Amit’s father was in the USA, and his mother was in Delhi receiving treatment, while Amit, Shilpa, and their two daughters were on a trip to Nainital. Supporting documents, such as photographs and a hotel visitor’s register, were provided to substantiate their claims.
The attorney also noted that the complaint seemed to serve as a means to complicate legal matters, especially since the wife had already filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act on July 7, 2015, shortly before her brother’s complaint in Bahraich. Additionally, she initiated another case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in Lucknow, misrepresenting her residency to cause further distress to her husband.
In her affidavit dated July 20, 2016, submitted to the Gurugram court, she claimed that she had inadvertently filed the case in Lucknow on her lawyer’s advice, clarifying that she had not actually resided there but had only traveled for winter holidays with her daughters.
Ultimately, the Additional Principal Judge in the family court in Gurugram ruled in the husband’s favor in February 2021, based on the findings that cruelty was not proven against him, but rather against the wife. Upon reviewing the case records, Justice Singh concluded that the divorce proceedings validated the husband’s claims and indicated that the brother’s complaint did not reflect any prior attempts to report the matter to law enforcement. Cross-examination results suggested that the wife lacked knowledge about the case’s details, indicating that her brother had filed the criminal charges out of a personal vendetta.
Recognizing that the couple had divorced, the court concluded that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the criminal prosecution. As a result, the judgment included an order to dismiss the ongoing proceedings related to the complaint case in the CJM court in Bahraich, nullifying prior orders from the CJM and ADJ courts.
