Komal Narang VS State of Rajasthan

[featured_image]
Download
Download is available until [expire_date]
  • Version
  • Download 2
  • File Size 252.24 KB
  • File Count 1
  • Create Date September 13, 2021
  • Last Updated September 13, 2021

Komal Narang VS State of Rajasthan

Not ideal to prosecute in-laws if they did not reside with the couple: HC

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1842/2020

Komal Narang VS State of Rajasthan
Reserved on 16/08/2021
Pronounced on 01/09/2021

Recently, the Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed against parents-in-law in the case for alleged dowry harassment and other allegations. The Court opined that it was a case of over-implication, as the in-laws didn’t ordinarily reside with the estranged couple.

To come to this conclusion Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati relied on Rajasthan High Court’s judgement in Hari Ram Sharma & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. in that case the Court had opined that it was not uncommon to implicate immediate relatives of the husband in matrimonial cases.

In that context, the Bench concluded that as the in-laws did not reside with the couple most times, it would not be proper to prosecute family members like in-laws.

The couple had moved to Bangkok and were living there after marriage. The wife used to visit in-laws and had stayed with them from time to time. Before filing the FIR, the wife had invited the in-laws to visit her in Bangkok.

After going through certain WhatsApp conversations, the Bench remarked that allegations against the in-laws were levelled only after the relationship between the husband and wife soured.

The allegations against the in-laws were that they kicked the wife out of the house, lied to her to get her married to their son, and made demands for dowry.

However, the Hon’ble Court ruled that these allegations were sporadic and vague because no specific incident was mentioned in the FIR.

In this context, the Bench opined that allegations against the in-laws were nothing but an expansion of a matrimonial dispute with the motive to pressurise the parties.

Accordingly, the Court court quashed the case against the in-laws but the Court did not interfere with the case against the husband.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *