The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of dowry death, cruelty and related offences following the death by suicide of his wife in Toronto, Canada, holding that the allegations were vague and lacked material establishing a reasonable nexus between the alleged harassment and her death.
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan allowed the husband’s appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR against him. The Court held that continuation of the prosecution, in the absence of specific and cogent material supporting the allegations, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The case arose from the death of the man’s wife on June 11, 2023, after she fell from the 22nd floor of the residential apartment where the couple lived in Toronto. The couple had married in January 2021 and moved to Canada in February 2022. A handwritten note recovered from their apartment referred to the deceased’s struggles with employment and the stress arising from her studies and inability to find a suitable job.
Following her death, her father lodged an FIR alleging that the husband and his family had made dowry demands, including demands for gold, and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. The FIR invoked Sections 304B, 323, 498A and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Canadian Coroner’s investigation and Toronto Police report recorded that there were no signs of a struggle or foul play in the apartment. The Toronto Police subsequently closed its investigation after finding that the handwriting in the note matched that of the deceased.
The Supreme Court noted that there had been no allegations of dowry demand from the time of the marriage until the wife’s death. The allegations concerning demands for gold related to events in 2021 and 2022, while the FIR was lodged only after her death. The Court also observed that the note did not refer to the husband or his family, or attribute the deceased’s death to alleged dowry demands or cruelty.
Examining the allegation concerning 15 tolas of gold given at the time of marriage, the Court observed that the material indicated that the jewellery had been given to both the husband and the deceased. It held that such a gift, given to the newly married couple out of love and affection and without an established demand, could not be construed as dowry.
The Court also found that the allegations concerning gifts exchanged during Diwali and a transfer of ₹1 lakh from the deceased’s brother to the husband did not establish a dowry demand. The latter transaction had taken place around the time the husband booked flight tickets for his wife to travel to India, while the bank records reflected multiple transactions between the parties.
On the allegations of cruelty and harassment, the Court observed that the FIR did not provide specific details of the alleged incidents. It held that general allegations of mental and physical harassment, without particulars or supporting material, were insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. The allegations that the husband called his wife names such as stupid and useless, even if accepted at face value, did not by themselves satisfy the ingredients of cruelty or criminal intimidation under the provisions invoked.
The Bench reiterated that, to attract Section 304B IPC, the prosecution must establish that soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with a dowry demand. In the present case, the Court found no cogent material establishing such a demand or a reasonable nexus between the alleged harassment and the suicide.
Emphasising the need for caution in matrimonial cases, the Court observed that allegations must be scrutinised carefully to prevent both miscarriage of justice and abuse of the legal process. It also held that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence.
Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal(1992) Suppl (1) SCC 335, the Court concluded that the offences alleged against the husband were not made out and that it was neither expedient nor in the interests of justice to allow the prosecution to continue.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order and quashed the FIR, along with all consequential proceedings against the husband.
