The Bombay High Court’s recent ruling in Shivprasad s/o Madhav Katte v. State of Maharashtra delivers a critical clarification on the threshold for framing charges in dowry death cases, emphasizing that blanket allegations against extended family members without specific, proximate links to harassment cannot justify trial. This decision reinforces the principle that Section 239 CrPC is not a mere formality but a safeguard against indiscriminate prosecution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the suicide of Sangita, a married woman, on 12 July 2016. Her father, Madhav Govindrao Dhulshete, filed an FIR alleging that her in-laws - including her husband, parents-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law - harassed her for unpaid dowry of ₹5,00,000 and additional funds for a house. He claimed she was subjected to verbal abuse, denial of food, sleep deprivation, and physical beatings, culminating in her death by hanging.
Procedural History
- 12 July 2016: FIR registered under Sections 304B, 498A, and 406 IPC at Nanded Rural Police Station.
- 2016 - 2023: Investigation completed; charge-sheet filed naming all five accused.
- 16 January 2024: Additional Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application under Section 239 CrPC filed by the accused.
- 2024: Revision petition filed before the Bombay High Court under Section 401 CrPC.
The Parties' Positions
- Revision Petitioners (Accused): Argued that allegations against parents-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law were vague, omnibus, and unsupported by any independent evidence. No specific acts of harassment were attributed to them in the FIR.
- State & Informant: Contended that the collective conduct of the in-laws created a hostile environment, and the timing of the suicide after a phone call alleging harassment established a proximate link.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought discharge of Revision Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 (parents-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law) from all charges, arguing no prima facie case existed against them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 239 CrPC permits framing of charges against extended family members in a dowry death case when the FIR and charge-sheet contain only general, non-specific allegations without identifying their individual roles in the alleged harassment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Kailashben Patel v. State of Maharashtra to argue that:
- Omnibus allegations against multiple family members without individualized conduct violate the right to fair trial.
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against automatic inclusion of in-laws in dowry cases.
- The absence of any direct evidence linking the parents-in-law or siblings to harassment rendered the charge against them groundless under Section 239 CrPC.
For the Respondent
The State and informant’s counsel argued that:
- The collective nature of dowry harassment in Indian households justifies joint liability.
- The suicide occurring the day after a phone call detailing demands created a circumstantial link implicating all in-laws.
- The supplementary statement and mother’s testimony, though delayed, corroborated the general pattern of abuse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the FIR, supplementary statement, and witness depositions. It emphasized that Section 239 CrPC does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but demands a prima facie case - meaning materials must reasonably suggest the accused committed the offence.
"The word 'groundless', in our opinion, means that there must be no ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence."
The Court held that while the husband’s role was clearly delineated - direct demands for money, threats of divorce, and the final phone call - the allegations against the other four accused were conclusory and lacked specificity. No statement from the deceased, no independent witness, and no physical or documentary evidence tied the parents-in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law to acts of cruelty or coercion.
The Court distinguished Century Spinning and Onkar Nath Mishra, noting that judicial scrutiny at the discharge stage is not a rubber stamp but requires active evaluation. The mere fact that names appear in the FIR does not create a presumption of guilt. The Court further noted the delayed recording of the mother’s statement (seven days post-FIR) and the absence of corroboration from the so-called "understanding" witnesses, who only repeated the informant’s version.
The Court concluded that while the husband’s conduct met the threshold for a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC and Section 304B IPC, the same could not be said for the other accused.
The Verdict
The revision petition was partly allowed. The husband (Petitioner No. 1) remained charged, but Revision Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 were discharged. The Court held that a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC requires specific, individualized allegations of cruelty, not collective blame.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vague Allegations Cannot Sustain Charges
- Practitioners must now rigorously challenge joint charges in dowry cases where the FIR lacks individualized conduct.
- Courts are obligated to scrutinize whether each accused’s role is independently substantiated before framing charges.
Proximity of Suicide Alone Is Insufficient
- The timing of suicide after a phone call may support a case against the immediate perpetrator (e.g., husband) but cannot, by itself, implicate extended family.
- Prosecutors must produce direct or circumstantial evidence linking other in-laws to the harassment.
Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC Is a Meaningful Safeguard
-
Section 239 CrPC is not a procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary prosecution.
-
Lawyers should routinely file discharge applications in dowry cases involving multiple accused, especially where allegations are omnibus.
-
Courts must not defer to the prosecution’s narrative without independent judicial evaluation.
-
If the FIR names 10 people but only describes conduct by one, discharge must be granted to the others.
-
Delayed or inconsistent statements must be flagged as undermining the prima facie case.
-
The burden is on the prosecution to show individual culpability - not on the accused to prove innocence.
