Section 498A IPC | Telling Her To Indulge In Prostitution For Dowry Is Most Obnoxious Form Of Harassment: Jharkhand High Court

"Direct and specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment at the stage of summoning cannot be brushed aside on grounds of age or alleged false implication" –  Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant ruling upholding the summoning order issued against the parents-in-law of a complainant who alleged extreme matrimonial cruelty, including forced prostitution, dowry harassment, and attempt to murder.

Refusing to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary dismissed the plea of the petitioners—father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant—who sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad, in a complaint case registered as Complaint Case No. 8529 of 2023.

The petitioners were summoned for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 307 (attempt to murder), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 IPC (common intention) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

“Allegations, If Taken At Face Value, Clearly Attract Penal Provisions”

The Court observed that the complaint was not of a vague or omnibus nature. Instead, it contained direct and specific allegations against the in-laws, particularly concerning dowry demand and serious acts of harassment.

Justice Choudhary noted, “There is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of making dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a bike and there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of harassing the complainant in most obnoxious manner by telling her to indulge in prostitution and the petitioners would arrange prospective customers for her... as a means to coerce her to meet their unlawful demand.”

The Court held that even at the stage of summoning, such grave and pointed accusations, if substantiated by statements on solemn affirmation and the inquiry witnesses, cannot be disregarded.

While the defence had tried to argue that in the complainant’s solemn statement she had primarily accused her husband of demanding dowry, the Court clarified that such mention does not exonerate the parents-in-law, especially when the complaint also attributes specific acts to them.

“True it is that in para 7 of her statement on Solemn Affirmation, the complainant has stated that her husband was demanding the dowry. But this statement... does not mean that the petitioners were not demanding the dowry... as the complainant has not stated that only her husband was demanding dowry,” the Court observed in Paragraph 6 of the judgment.

High Court Reiterates Limited Scope Under Section 482 CrPC At Summoning Stage

The petitioners had also sought leniency citing their old age and alleged false implication. However, the Court reiterated the settled position that at the summoning stage, neither the defence of the accused nor questions of evidentiary sufficiency can be considered.

Relying on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court made it clear that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be invoked to quash criminal proceedings where the complaint discloses the commission of an offence. The Court emphasized that "mere plea of false implication and age-related sympathy cannot be examined under Section 482 CrPC at this stage."

Justice Choudhary observed: “This Court is of the considered view there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners in this CrMP in exercise of its power under Section 482 of CrPC.”

Complaint Alleged Extreme Cruelty, Coercion Into Illicit Acts

The factual matrix of the case is deeply disturbing. The complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, alleged that after her marriage, she was repeatedly subjected to dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. When those demands remained unmet, she was allegedly coerced to engage in prostitution, with the petitioners purportedly assuring to “arrange prospective customers”.

Further, she claimed she was compelled to assist in the illegal sale of liquor by the father-in-law and made to clean liquor glasses used in the illicit business. She also alleged frequent beatings, physical abuse, and even attempts to kill her, with complicity of all the accused. The mother-in-law was specifically accused of seizing her jewellery as an act of pressure.

These serious accusations formed the basis of the complaint registered before the JMFC, Dhanbad, who, upon examining the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation, and other witness testimonies, found a prima facie case and issued summons.

Dismissal of Petition Affirms Victim-Centric Jurisprudence in Matrimonial Offences

The High Court's judgment is a reaffirmation of the principle that in matrimonial cruelty and dowry-related offences, courts must be cautious not to prematurely stifle the voice of victims at the threshold.

Where direct allegations with sufficient factual foundation are made, especially involving serious and offensive acts like coercion into prostitution, the criminal process must be allowed to run its course.

The decision underscores that the criminal justice system should not lend itself to being short-circuited through premature quashing, particularly where the allegations involve not only physical but also extreme psychological and social abuse.

Date of Decision: 14 January 2026