The Bombay High Court has clarified that blanket allegations against in-laws, devoid of specific acts of cruelty or temporal proximity to a woman’s death, cannot justify proceeding to trial under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. This ruling reinforces the necessity of concrete, credible evidence at the discharge stage and curbs the mechanistic application of dowry-related provisions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the suicide of Shubhangi, a married woman, on 10 October 2018. Her brother, Pradeep Dhakane, filed an FIR naming her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law (Revision Petitioner 1), and cousin father-in-law (Revision Petitioner 2) under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 IPC. The allegations centered on repeated dowry demands - first for Rs.30,000 to dig a well, then Rs.50,000 for a plot - and subsequent mental cruelty, including taunts about her complexion and domestic abilities. The complainant claimed these demands were met but renewed, leading to harassment culminating in suicide.
Procedural History
- October 2018: FIR No. 188 of 2018 registered at Chaklamba Police Station.
- 2019: Accused chargesheeted; case committed to Sessions Court as Case No. 111 of 2019.
- September 2024: Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, rejected discharge application (Exhibit 62) filed by Revision Petitioners 1 and 2.
- January 2026: Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 2024 filed before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
Relief Sought
The revision petitioners sought discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that the charge sheet contained no specific allegations against them, no evidence of cruelty in proximity to death, and no role attributable to Revision Petitioner 2, who was posted in Pune and allegedly absent from the marital home.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether omnibus and unspecific allegations of dowry demand and cruelty, without temporal proximity to death or individualized conduct, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case under Section 498-A and Section 304-B IPC at the discharge stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the allegations against Revision Petitioner 1 (mother-in-law) and Revision Petitioner 2 (cousin father-in-law) were vague, generalized, and lacked specificity. No incident of physical or mental cruelty was attributed to them individually. Revision Petitioner 2, a police officer stationed in Pune, had no opportunity to participate in alleged harassment. The only reference to him was a single, uncorroborated statement about his presence at a meeting where dowry was mentioned - a statement made only after the suicide. Counsel relied on Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam and Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. State of Uttarakhand to emphasize that cruelty must be persistent, willful, and proximate to death.
For the Respondent-State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the FIR and charge sheet collectively showed a pattern of dowry harassment by the entire family. The fact that demands were met twice but renewed indicated a continuing pattern. The presence of Revision Petitioner 2 at a meeting where dowry was reiterated, even if post-facto, was sufficient to infer participation. The prosecution argued that discharge should not be granted merely because evidence might be weak - it was for trial to determine credibility.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal standard under Section 227 Cr.P.C., reaffirming that the stage is not for determining guilt but for assessing whether there is a grave suspicion warranting trial. It emphasized that strong suspicion cannot substitute proof, and mere inclusion of names in an FIR is insufficient.
"Cruelty must be assessed contextually... There has to be willful conduct to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health."
The Court noted that the FIR contained sweeping, omnibus allegations against all in-laws without distinguishing roles. No specific instance of cruelty was linked to Revision Petitioner 1. No evidence placed the accused at the marital home during the critical period preceding death. The alleged meeting involving Revision Petitioner 2 occurred at an unspecified time, with no indication it occurred within days or weeks of the suicide.
The Court distinguished Section 304-B IPC, which requires proof that dowry demand and cruelty occurred "soon before" death. Here, the last alleged demand was unspecified and occurred months prior. The absence of any contemporaneous evidence of harassment rendered the charge unsustainable.
The Court further held that Section 498-A IPC demands persistent, targeted harassment - not generalized family conflict. The failure to attribute specific acts to each accused rendered the charge legally defective.
The Verdict
The revision petitioners succeeded. The Bombay High Court quashed the order rejecting discharge and allowed the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Both petitioners were discharged from charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 IPC. The Court held that the material before the trial court failed to establish a prima facie case against them.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Charges
- Practitioners must challenge discharge applications where FIRs lump all family members without individualized allegations.
- Courts must scrutinize whether each accused is linked to specific acts of cruelty, not merely association.
- Generalized claims like "the in-laws harassed her" are legally inadequate under Section 498-A.
Proximity to Death Is Non-Negotiable for Section 304-B
- Prosecutors must establish a clear temporal link between dowry demand and death - ideally within days or weeks.
- Demands made months prior, even if repeated, do not satisfy the "soon before" requirement under Section 304-B.
- Absence of evidence from the immediate period before death warrants discharge.
Role of Distant Relatives Requires Concrete Link
- Relatives residing outside the marital home (e.g., police officers posted elsewhere) cannot be charged based on hearsay or post-facto statements.
- Presence at a single meeting, without evidence of coercion or harassment, is insufficient to infer criminal intent.
- Courts must avoid automatic inclusion of extended family absent direct participation.
