The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the criminal proceedings against a man and his parents in a case of dowry harassment and assault filed by his wife’s brother on grounds that they are currently divorced and to continue criminal prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of law. As one of the grounds, the court also cited a family court’s observation in the couple’s divorce suit that cruelty has been proved against the wife and not against the husband.As mentioned in the high court’s order, the wife’s brother had lodged a complaint case at the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) court of Uttar Pradesh’s Bahraich district in 2015 while the family court in Gurugram had ruled in favour of the husband in its judgment in 2021 in the divorce suit filed by him.A single bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh, in its judgment on April 8, stated, “Considering all the facts and circumstances; observations made by the family court in the divorce suit; cross-examination of the wife; further the complaint has been filed after one year and nine months and cruelty has not been proved against the husband, rather the same has been proved against the wife, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants are nothing but abuse of process of law and they deserved to be quashed.”Stating that they were innocent and falsely implicated, the husband’s parents had approached the high court seeking relief by setting aside the CJM, Bahraich order dated August 14, 2015 regarding filing of a case on charges of mental or physical cruelty of a married woman by the husband and relatives, including dowry harassment, assault, criminal intimidation and under Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was filed by the wife’s brother against the husband and parents. They filed a criminal revision application in ADJ court challenging the CJM’s order, but it was dismissed on March 8, 2017.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that Amit Khanna was married to Shilpa on March 9, 2002 in New Delhi and they have never lived with Amit’s parents in Bahraich. Therefore, there is no question of any alleged demand of dowry and physical assault on the part of the parents. The submission also argued that the date of the incident as mentioned in the case is June 5, 2013, while the case was filed on July 28, 2015, showing an inordinate, unreasonable and unexplained delay of two years in filing the complaint. However, the trial court did not record any finding on the inordinate delay though it was categorically pleaded in the application for recall of the order filed on February 20, 2016 by the applicants, the counsel submitted.It was also argued that after the alleged incident, neither any FIR was ever lodged by the woman or her brother nor any medical examination of her was conducted, which gives rise to the credibility and genuineness of the alleged incident.The counsel further stated that on the date of the alleged incident, Amit’s father was in the USA and mother was in Delhi undergoing treatment for her knee pain. Also, Amit along with Shilpa and their two daughters were on a trip to Nainital on the said date. Photographs and the visitors register of the hotel along with the certificate of visit obtained from the hotel where they stayed were presented as evidence, the counsel submitted.Story continues below this adIt was further stated that the complaint was filed as a tool to multiply the proceedings as the wife, too, had on July 7, 2015 instituted a case under the Domestic Violence Act at Gurgaon before her brother filed the case in Bahraich the same month.The wife instituted another case under section 125 CrPC (seeking maintenance) at Lucknow, in order to harass the husband by stating her place of residence at Lucknow, whereas she along with her daughters were residing permanently at the co-owned house of the husband at Gurgaon. She also concealed the fact that a case under Domestic Violence Act had already been filed by her before the ACJM court, Gurgaon, the counsel argued.However, she filed an affidavit dated July 20, 2016 before the Gurgaon court stating that due to inadvertence and on the advice of her counsel, she had filed the criminal case against her husband in Lucknow. She clarified she never resided in Lucknow and had come for winter vacations along with the daughters, the counsel submitted.It was also submitted that the Additional Principal Judge, family court, Gurugram, in the divorce suit filed by the husband in 2016, decreed in his favour on February 25, 2021.Story continues below this adAfter hearing the submissions, the bench of Justice Singh observed after going through the record, it is clear that the divorce suit filed by the husband has been decreed as cruelty is not proved against him, rather it is proved against the wife.It further observed that the complaint does not indicate that at any point of time, the complainant (wife’s brother) made any attempt to lodge the case before the police. The cross-examination of his sister in proceedings under section 125 CrPC further indicates that she had no knowledge about the facts of the present case and it appears that her brother had instituted the criminal proceedings just to settle his personal score with mala fide intention, the bench said.The bench added that the court took note of the fact that the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.In the judgment, the court ordered to quash the entire proceedings of the complaint case pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, including the orders dated March 8, 2017 and August 14, 2015 passed by the CJM and ADJ courts.