Deepak Singh v. State of Uttarakhand another

lodging of the FIR by the deceased's brother, alleging harassment and cruelty for dowry. The matter concerns allegations of dowry death following the demise of the applicant’s wife during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. According to the applicant, the deceased died due to COVID-19 despite his best efforts to secure treatment. He contends that the State’s case lacks substantive evidence, relying solely on oral statements without any Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. corroboration. It is submitted that no electronic evidence has been lawfully produced, with non-compliance of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Financial transactions referred to in the complaint, including insurance policies and account transfers, have been explained as legitimate family arrangements.

4. The applicant asserts that there is no credible material to support the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty and that the case of the State is based on suspicion rather than evidence. Most witnesses have not corroborated the allegations. Supporting documents like bank statements and insurance details have been filed, and the applicant urges that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case is a classic example of abuse of process, as the FIR and subsequent proceedings are based entirely on unsubstantiated allegations without any cogent evidence.

7. It was argued that the deceased died due to COVID-19 complications, and the applicant made all possible efforts to provide her with medical care during that critical period. The complaint was lodged after her death and is motivated by personal grudges harboured by the complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the applicant. It was further contended that no material evidence exists to support the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty, and that the statements relied upon are vague and not corroborated by documentary or electronic proof. Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant emphasised that the State has failed to produce any WhatsApp chats or digital communication in accordance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, or its equivalent under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, rendering such content legally inadmissible. Moreover, the financial transactions referred to in the complaint have been duly explained, including a sum of ₹60,000 given to the deceased’s father and an insurance policy purchased in the name of the applicant’s minor son. It was submitted that such legitimate financial dealings cannot be construed as dowry. The applicant, having no criminal antecedents and having cooperated with the investigation, seeks quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice.

9. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR disclose a prima facie case against the applicant under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and the relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was contended that soon after marriage, the deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for dowry, which ultimately led to her unnatural death. The State argued that the death of a young married woman within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances mandates a thorough trial, particularly when family members have alleged persistent harassment.

10. It was further submitted that statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation support the State’s case, and the trial court has rightly taken cognizance. The State maintained that the explanation offered by the applicant regarding the financial transactions and cause of death are matters of defence that must be tested during trial and not at the stage of a quashing petition. The State urged that the petition be dismissed to allow the matter to proceed on merits in the interest of justice. Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. Upon a careful evaluation of the case record and the rival submissions, this Court finds that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicant does not appear to be justified in the peculiar facts of this case.

12. The offence alleged is undoubtedly grave, involving the death of a young married woman within seven years of marriage, and the Court is conscious of the presumption under Section 304B IPC, read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act. However, the invocation of these provisions must be backed by specific and credible material indicating that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry “soon before her death.” This essential ingredient appears to be conspicuously missing in the present case.

13. The FIR and statements made by the complainant and certain relatives contain general allegations of dowry demands, but they are devoid of particulars as to time, nature, or frequency of such demands. The record reflects that the deceased passed away due to COVID-19 complications, which is an admitted medical fact. There is no medical or forensic report suggesting unnatural death by suicide, poisoning, or assault. On the contrary, the material placed by the applicant including hospital records and treatment details suggests that he took active steps to care for his wife during her illness, which lasted several days.

14. Furthermore, the WhatsApp messages and electronic evidence referred to by the State have not been produced in accordance with the mandatory legal requirement under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, the Supreme Court has clearly held that any electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 4 Ashish Naithani J. Act to be admissible. In absence of proper certification and seizure of the devices from which such data was extracted, this Court cannot treat the alleged electronic evidence as admissible. The State has also failed to explain why such material was not collected during the investigation, especially when it was allegedly in the possession of close relatives.

15. Additionally, the financial transactions cited in the complaint such as a cheque given at the time of marriage, the alleged debit of ₹91,000/- and the purchase of an insurance policy have been reasonably explained by the applicant. It has been shown that the money was deposited in the account of the applicant’s minor son and the deceased’s father was named as the appointee under the policy, which undermines the suggestion that these were acts of extortion or dowry harassment. The affidavits filed with annexed documents including bank statements support the applicant’s case and rebut the State’s theory. There is no material to indicate any history of prior complaints or domestic violence before the unfortunate demise of the deceased.

16. The Court also notes that the complainant is the brother of the deceased, and that family discord or misunderstanding post-death cannot be ruled out. The possibility of the FIR being an emotional reaction, unaccompanied by tangible proof, cannot be discounted. Taken cumulatively, the absence of specific allegations, the lack of corroborative evidence, the unexplained omission to collect digital records properly, and the conduct of the applicant during the deceased’s illness all cast serious doubt on the State’s case and militate against the necessity of subjecting the applicant to prolonged criminal trial.

17. While adjudicating an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court must strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of justice. In the present case, the applicant has been in prolonged custody Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 5 Ashish Naithani J. since 2021, with no substantial progress in trial. There is no allegation of the applicant having tampered with evidence or influenced witnesses, and he has fully cooperated during the investigation. The materials on record do not reflect any past criminal antecedents, nor does the FIR disclose habitual violent conduct or systemic dowry harassment.

18. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down categories where criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process. One such category includes instances where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The present case, viewed in light of this principle, does not satisfy the threshold necessary for the matter to proceed to trial. The allegations appear to stem more from suspicion and post-facto bitterness than from substantiated fact.

19. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the death in question occurred during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, under extraordinary circumstances, and there is sufficient medical documentation to show that the deceased was under continuous treatment. The subsequent allegations appear to have arisen only after her demise, which raises questions about their spontaneity and credibility. Further, the State’s failure to collect and present admissible digital or documentary evidence despite ample opportunity weakens its case considerably.

20. The principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for personal vengeance or to settle private scores is now well settled. In such situations, courts must guard against the injustice that arises from mechanical prosecution. Having weighed all attendant factors including the length of custody, absence of prior misconduct, stage of proceedings, and infirmities Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 6 Ashish Naithani J. in evidence this Court finds no compelling reason to allow the State to continue.

21. This Court cannot ignore the malicious pattern that emerges from the facts: a professionally independent woman tragically dies of natural causes; her estranged relatives, who were conspicuously absent during her illness, suddenly discover allegations of cruelty; and the husband's legitimate financial management is portrayed as looting. The State has deliberately ignored exculpatory statements of neutral witnesses while building its case.

22. What is most disturbing in the present case is the timing of the allegations. The complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, never raised any grievance during the subsistence of the marriage. The FIR was lodged only after the unfortunate demise of the wife due to COVID-19, which raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the complaint. The medical records conclusively establish that the deceased succumbed to pandemic-related complications, with no indication whatsoever of any foul play or external factors contributing to her death.

23. The summoning order suffers from non-application of judicial mind as it failed to properly sift through the material to separate genuine allegations from vindictive exaggerations. Continuing this prosecution would only result in wasting precious judicial time and tormenting an innocent man who is now left to care for his orphaned son. ORDER In light of the above discussion, and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court hereby quashes Criminal Case No. 4884 of 2021, registered at Police Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 7 Ashish Naithani J. Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, under Section 498A IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Any coercive measures taken against the applicant shall stand vacated forthwith. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the applicant shall stand discharged. Dated: 02.06.2025 NR/ Ashish Naithani, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.1701 of 2021-----Deepak Singh vs State of Uttarakhand & another 8 Ashish Naithani J.