Woman says in-laws compared her to shoe, Himachal Pradesh High Court refuses to quash her Rs 50 lakh dowry case

FIR mentions ‘specific roles’

• The high court noted that the FIR attributed specific roles to each of the accused and, therefore, the allegations could not be termed vague or omnibus to warrant quashing of the proceedings.
• The court clarified that it cannot conduct a mini-trial to determine the correctness of the allegations in the FIR.
• The Himachal Pradesh High Court thus dismissed the husband’s plea seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him and his family.

‘Insulted by showing slippers’

• The wife’s police complaint states that she got married in March 2024 as per Hindu rites and customs, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted.
• The husband’s family members allegedly demanded dowry before the marriage and insisted that it should be solemnised at a particular place.
• It was claimed that 20 tolas of gold and silver ornaments and clothes were given to the husband’s family members.
• She was allegedly told that other families had offered Rs 50 lakh and a car for the marriage and that she should arrange a large car and a fixed deposit (FD) worth Rs 50 lakh from her father.
• She also alleged physical harassment on expressing her family’s inability to meet these demands.
• The wife alleged that her sister-in-law once discussed a police raid involving her husband and blamed her relatives for the same.
• She further alleged that her mother-in-law pressured her to get the matter settled through political influence and by spending money if necessary.
• The wife also alleged that her sister-in-law insulted her by showing her slippers and saying that her status in the matrimonial home was no better than a shoe.
• She was also allegedly pressured to secure a transfer for the sister-in-law, the Himachal Pradesh High Court was informed.

Husband seeks restitution of conjugal rights

• The husband, however, claimed that the wife left the matrimonial home in August 2024 without any reason.
• The wife, on the other hand, alleged that before taking her back, her husband demanded arrangements of Rs 60–70 lakh and when she failed to arrange the money, he refused to take her back.
• Subsequently, the husband filed a plea seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
• In November 2024, the wife claimed that she returned to the matrimonial home with her parents, relatives and panchayat members.
• She alleged that she was denied entry, threatened by her mother-in-law, and discovered that her jewellery and clothes kept in an almirah were missing.
• In December 2024, she filed a complaint alleging cruelty, criminal intimidation and misappropriation of property.
• Aggrieved by the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet, the husband moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were false, vague and motivated by the matrimonial dispute.

Arguments

Appearing for the husband, advocate Y P Sood argued before the Himachal Pradesh High Court that the allegations made by the wife were false and vague, and were made as a counterblast to the petition filed by his client to seek the restitution of the conjugal rights. No action should be taken on the basis of the allegations, he added.

He prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed.

Representing the state, additional advocate general Jitender Sharma submitted that the wife had specifically alleged that she was being harassed by her husband and his relatives to bring dowry and money from her parental family.

It was further submitted before the Himachal Pradesh High Court that she was being compelled to approach a local politician for the settlement of the dispute and for securing the transfer of her sister-in-law.

Sharma added that the woman was humiliated by being shown slippers and that, after she left the matrimonial home, the dowry kept in her almirah was allegedly misappropriated by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.