“The allegations are general and the cause of death of the deceased is on account of any such ill-treatment due to the conduct of the petitioner No.1 and no one else.” Holding this, the Orissa High Court allowed in part a criminal revision challenging rejection of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case concerning the suicide of a woman within seven years of marriage. The Court modified the Sessions Court’s order by discharging the mother-in-law of the deceased but declined to discharge the husband, observing that a prima facie case existed against him under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The Court discharged the petitioner mother-in-law from the criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the Court declined to discharge the husband, holding that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against him. The Sessions Court’s order was accordingly modified to the extent of discharging only the mother-in-law.
Facts
The petitioners, husband and mother-in-law of the deceased, were accused in a dowry death case where the woman had allegedly died by suicide within seven years of marriage. An FIR was registered in 2014 alleging harassment and dowry demands, including a specific allegation of demand for a gold chain. Initially registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, the chargesheet was eventually filed under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and mother-in-law. The petitioners sought discharge before the Sessions Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C., which was rejected on January 24, 2025, prompting the revision before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Sessions Court was justified in refusing discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for both the husband and the mother-in-law.
- Whether prima facie material existed against both petitioners to warrant framing of charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.
- Whether general and omnibus allegations could justify prosecution of the mother-in-law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the allegations in the FIR and witness statements were omnibus and lacked specific attribution, especially against the mother-in-law. It was submitted that the deceased had committed suicide due to being issueless and not due to any harassment. The medical documents produced showed she was under treatment for infertility. Petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law, was elderly and ailing and had been granted anticipatory bail earlier on the premise that allegations against her were general. They further submitted that there was no direct evidence linking the mother-in-law to any specific act of cruelty or harassment.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that the chargesheet was based on prima facie evidence collected during investigation, including witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which pointed to ill-treatment and dowry demands. It was argued that the deceased was harassed due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands, and her death, occurring within seven years of marriage, invoked a presumption under law. The State argued that the trial court rightly refused discharge and both accused must face trial.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C., which provides for discharge if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. It held that while the standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, there must be specific material to frame charges. General and omnibus allegations without particular attribution cannot justify prosecution, especially when the accused is not the primary alleged perpetrator.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment does not cite case law explicitly, the reasoning aligns with established precedent such as:
- Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 – holding that omnibus allegations against in-laws, without specific instances, are insufficient.
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 – explaining the scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. as requiring the Court to assess whether the materials disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding to trial.
The Court’s reasoning implicitly relied on such principles in granting relief to the mother-in-law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the allegations in the FIR and statements were primarily directed against the husband. While the FIR mentioned all in-laws generally, specific allegations and material evidence, including the statements of the deceased’s father and other witnesses, pointed to the husband being primarily responsible. The Court noted that the deceased returned from her in-laws’ house shortly before her death and that her husband admitted to ill-treatment and promised to mend his ways. Further, the mother-in-law had herself informed the informant of the death, and there was no direct allegation of harassment attributable to her. Therefore, while a case for trial existed against the husband, the same could not be said for the mother-in-law.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the materials on record revealed a prima facie case against the husband but not against the mother-in-law. It held that continuing prosecution against the mother-in-law would amount to misuse of the process of law. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court was modified to discharge the mother-in-law while upholding the framing of charges against the husband.
Implications
This decision reiterates that criminal proceedings, especially in dowry-related cases, must be based on specific allegations and evidence. The judgment serves as a reminder that general accusations cannot be the basis for roping in every relative unless corroborated by material on record. It reinforces the principle that discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is warranted where no prima facie case exists and also protects elderly or distant relatives from unwarranted prosecution.
Case Referred
The judgment does not explicitly refer to external case law, but its reasoning is aligned with Supreme Court precedents such as Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, where courts have emphasized the need for specific allegations and prima facie material to proceed against accused persons.
FAQs
1. Can a court discharge an accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. even after chargesheet is filed?
Yes, if the court finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and the allegations are general or not supported by evidence, it can discharge the accused.
2. What is the significance of ‘omnibus allegations’ in dowry death cases?
Courts have consistently held that vague and general allegations without specific incidents or roles attributed to each accused are insufficient for prosecution.
3. Is being a relative of the husband enough to prosecute someone under Section 498-A or 304-B IPC?
No. Mere relationship is not enough. There must be specific, credible allegations backed by evidence linking the relative to the offence.
