Harassing in-laws; HC quashes case against senior citizens

NT Correspondent

The High Court of Karnataka has quashed a complaint filed against a 74-year-old and 64-yearold couple after it found that it was their former daughter-in-law’s attempt to harass them. Justice MI Arun in his judgment in a criminal petition quashed the case filed against Sachidananda Tripathy and Mamatha Tripathy, from Bhubaneshwar, Odisha.

The complaint against them was filed by Rashmi Jha, 36, a resident of Hebbal, at the Electronics City police station. Rashmi was married in 2013 and lived in Bengaluru with her husband. Way back in 2014, she filed a dowry harassment complaint against her husband and his parents (the Tripathys).

The police did not find any evidence in the case and filed a ‘B’ report closing the case. Rashmi then filed a petition for divorce in 2016 which was allowed by the Family Court in November 2021. In the meantime Rashmi filed another complaint against her in-laws in 2018. The case is pending before a lower court, and the police have yet to file a charge sheet.

Approaching the High Court against this case, the two senior citizens contended that they had stayed in Bengaluru with their son and former daughter-in-law for only a week back in 2014 and moved to Odisha after that.

The daughter-inlaw claimed that she did not know Kannada language and therefore did not know that a ‘B’ report was filed in the first complaint and therefore filed a second complaint. However, the HC said that the second complaint was an afterthought to harass the inlaws.

Quashing the case before the lower court, the HC said, “Admittedly, the second respondent (daughter-in-law) filed a complaint for dowry harassment against the petitioners way back in the year 2014. The police after investigation filed a ‘B’ report and the same is not challenged.

The Court (lower court) has come to the conclusion that there has been no dowry harassment meted out to the second respondent by the petitioners. The second complaint is a clear case of after-thought done with a view to harass the petitioners. Under the present circumstances of the case, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulation of a trial