CASE TITLE
MUKESH BANSAL VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. RAHUL CHATURVEDI
FACTS OF THE CASE
- In the present case, three revision petitions are clubbed together and decided by common judgement of the Court.
- The three revision petitions have came up before the court against an order of the trial court dated 03.03.2022 passed on three different applications in the same Sessions Trial wherein discharge applications were rejected by the learned session judge.
- In the present case, FIR was lodged by Shivangi Bansal, the wife against her husband Sahib Bansal and in-laws for the offences punishable under section 498A of IPC and other allegations of Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Shivangi Bansal got married to her husband in the year 2015.
- In the FIR, wife has alleged that her parents had spent plenty amount of money in the marriage but the in-laws weren’t satisfied and demanded for more dowry.
- She has put serious allegations on her father-in-law claiming that he asked for sexual favours and her brother-in-law also tried to ravish her physically. She alleges that the husband used to lock her in the bathroom and took away her phone. When she got pregnant, he tried to have forceful sex with her and even tried to unnatural sex with her.
- The police after probing deep into the matter dropped all the offences punishable under section 498A,393,504,506,327 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and in-laws.
- It is important to note that the present matter went twice for Mediation and Conciliation proceedings so that the matter can be easily and amicably be sorted between the parties. But no outcome came out.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- On the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court allowed the revision petition with regard to Mukesh Bansal and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022.
- Court held that the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations raised by her and those allegations are found false hereby dropped off.
- The court condemned the language and nature of the allegations made by the wife in the complain. It is observed that the wife has made general accusations of dowry demand and harassment on every member of her in-laws relations with focus on her husband.
- Court said that the wife had exaggerated and magnified the incidents into thousand fold.
- Court said that the story narrated in the FIR is abhorring, full of dirt and venomous which is evident from the graphic and vivid descriptions of the incident.
- Court relied on the judgement of K.Subba Rao vs State of Telangana (2018) to determine the liability of persons against whom allegations of Dowry demand are raised.
- Court observed that the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the wife were in the company of the couple for merely one year four months and twenty five days and then they left the couple and move to different place. It was found that they were not in a position to demand additional dowry. It was held that the Court had no reason to presumes that her parent-in-law were active participants of dowry demand harassment from different place at distance.
- Court found out that the wife had tried to misuse section 498A of IPC and attempted to involve husband’s relatives in the dispute. It was observed that the statement given by complainant’s gynaecologist refuses about forced abortion of the complainant.
- The court said that genuine cases of dowry harassment are a serious concern as because most of the cases brought before the court are a result of heat of anger and thirst of revenge.
- Court advised the advocates to pay due diligence to the matters they bring before the court and refrain from matters which are exaggerated versions of small incidents.
- The court under the guidance of the judgement given by the apex court in the case of Manav Adhikar vs Union of India keeping in mind the growing misuse of section 498A of IPC directs establishment of Family Welfare Committee (FWC) in each district.
- Court directs that no arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall take place after lodging of FIR without completion of a period of two months named as ‘Cooling Period’.
- During the cooling period, matters involving section 498A along with no injury 307 and other sections punishable with less than ten years imprisonment will be transferred to the FWC.
CONCLUSION
The present case is a normal judgement in context to allegations made under Section 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court rightly said that in present days false accusations of dowry demand and harassment are made in very casual manner. This tried is a threat to the society as well at the various legislations which aim at women protection. False allegations based on exaggerated versions of small incidents lead to great sufferings which damage the social fabric.
