Court refuses to quash cruelty case against husband, in-laws

New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against the husband and the in-laws of a woman in a domestic violence case, saying there were specific instances to show she was abused and beaten up by them for bringing insufficient dowry.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjiv Jain dismissed the plea of the man, his parents and sister challenging the order of a magisterial court framing charges against all of them for the offence of cruelty to woman under section 498A of the IPC.

“From the complaint and the material available on record, I am of the view that prima facie case under sections 498A read with 34 (common intention) of the IPC is made out against all the accused persons. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court…” the judge said.

The court said there was nothing to indicate that the magisterial court order was passed against the natural justice. It relied on the contents of the complaint that the woman, who got married to the accused in 2008, was physically assaulted and thrown out of the matrimonial house several times but they reconciled after intervention of the Crime Against Women (CAW) cell.

In 2013, when all attempts at reconciliation failed, the woman decided never to return to her husband and his family and lodged a police complaint against them. She claimed that on August 12, 2013, her husband, her parents- ­in-law and her sister ­in ­law demanded Rs two lakh. When she refused, they kicked and punched her and tied a dupatta (scarf) on her neck to strangulate her.

“In the instant case, there are specific instances and allegations against the husband, father- ­in ­-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother- ­in- ­law of the complainant who on one pretext or the other, for want of dowry, subjected the complainant to cruelty. “They also harassed her for unlawful demand of dowry. When she refused to fulfil their demands, all of them beat and harassed her,” the court said.

In the plea challenging the framing of charges against them, the accused claimed it was a false and motivated complaint as she wanted to put behind bars as many persons as possible. This claim was rejected by the court.