BENGALURU: Karnataka high court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman against her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law under dowry harassment provisions, observing “indiscriminate roping in” of in-laws despite their residence in India while the marital life largely lived abroad was disquieting.Also, the HC said the wife’s complaint was most common to marital discord, but falls “woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated” under the dowry law.Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing a petition filed by the accused, who were residents of Richmond Town, Bengaluru, challenging the complaint filed at Basavanagudi women police station in Jan 2023.After perusing the complaint, Justice Nagaprasanna noted it revealed grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, and disagreements over TV preferences, laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant wife as his servant.If this is the complaint, (then) it is an abuse of the process of law, as minor (marital) skirmishes are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC or even under Section 504 IPC,” the judge noted.The couple got married on Aug 25, 2017, and relocated to San Antonio, Texas. Their matrimonial life, which saw the arrival of child, lasted for six years. In Jan 2023, when the complainant returned to India, she registered a complaint naming her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 498A and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.Challenging the FIR, the petitioners argued there were some minor misunderstandings between the couple and the complaint was a classic case of abuse of Section 498A. The court was told that registration of the FIR resulted in a look-out circular against the husband, which stopped him from leaving India.“Such prosecutions founded on vague and omnibus allegations corrode justice. The allegations (in this case) did not constitute the offence alleged; they were inherently improbable. The continuation of investigation would serve no purpose other than to prolong harassment, stigmatise the petitioners and squander the precious time of criminal courts.The issuance of a look-out circular against the husband, on allegations so tenuous, would only compound injustice. To permit the criminal process to lumber forward would be to allow law to become a weapon rather than a remedy,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed, quashing the FIR against the petitioners.
