In a recent ruling in the matter of Aruna Dhanyakumar Doshi v/s State of Telangana & Others, the Supreme Court of India examined the validity of the quashing of an FIR by the High Court in a family dispute involving accusations of harassment, threats, and coercion related to property matters. The case centers around a complaint filed by an appellant (the complainant) against her family members, with allegations spanning from confinement and ill-treatment to coercion for executing gift deeds. The dispute eventually reached the apex court, where it was determined whether the High Court erred in quashing the FIR as it related to certain family members.
Background of the Case:
The appellant, an elderly woman, had executed multiple gift deeds alongside her late husband, transferring valuable properties to her children and their relatives. The dispute began when the appellant’s husband, on 29th March 2019, wrote a letter to the District Magistrate and District Commissioner alleging that his son (the second respondent) and daughter-in-law (the third respondent) had been threatening and pressuring him and his wife to execute gift deeds. The letter claimed that these actions were taken under duress, with the couple fearing retribution if they disclosed the transactions. According to the appellant, this situation escalated, and in subsequent complaints made in 2020, she alleged that she and her husband were being ill-treated and confined by her son and daughter-in-law, with some even suggesting that her life was at risk.
On 17th January 2021, based on the appellant's complaint, the police registered an FIR (Crime No. 21 of 2021), accusing the second to fifth respondents of committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. These offences ranged from wrongful confinement, intimidation, and extortion to unlawful coercion related to the gift deeds.
The family members of the appellant—respondents two through five—moved the High Court, seeking the quashing of the FIR. The High Court, in its order dated 1st June 2021, partially allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the fourth and fifth respondents, effectively excluding them from the criminal investigation. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, where the issue of whether the FIR should stand with respect to the fourth and fifth respondents was examined.
Legal Submissions:
In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel argued that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR at an early stage was premature and erroneous. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the appellant's counsel stressed that FIRs should not be quashed at the initial stages of investigation, unless there are clear grounds of abuse of the process of law. The appellant's legal team also contended that the 4th and 5th respondents had played an active role in the harassment, based on the appellant's complaints and her husband's letter.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that the entire prosecution was an abuse of the legal process, particularly given the lack of specific allegations against the 4th and 5th respondents in the appellant's complaints. They maintained that the High Court’s decision was justified and did not warrant interference.
Key Points of Consideration:
The Supreme Court focused on a few critical aspects of the case, particularly the role of the fourth and fifth respondents and the evidence—or lack thereof—linking them to the alleged offences. A thorough review of the various complaints made by the appellant and her daughter revealed that the majority of the allegations were general and did not specifically implicate the fourth and fifth respondents. While there were broad claims of coercion and ill-treatment, no specific role was ascribed to the fourth and fifth respondents in any of the complaints, especially regarding the execution of the gift deeds or the alleged confinement.
The letter dated 29th March 2019, written by the appellant's late husband, did not mention the fourth and fifth respondents, further weakening the case against them. The letter only expressed concerns about the second and third respondents' actions and their coercive behavior. In subsequent complaints, the appellant’s daughter (Sangita) made vague allegations, without providing concrete details linking the fourth and fifth respondents to any criminal activity. Even the appellant's complaint in January 2021 lacked specificity in accusing the fourth and fifth respondents of any wrongful acts related to the gift deeds.
Additionally, the Court noted that there was significant delay in lodging the complaint (over a year after the events in question), which further undermined the credibility of the allegations.
Conclusion:
After considering all the facts and submissions, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the FIR with respect to the fourth and fifth respondents. The Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the criminal case against these two family members, given the vague and general nature of the allegations made against them. The Court emphasized that while the investigation could proceed with respect to the second and third respondents, no specific role had been established for the fourth and fifth respondents based on the available evidence.
The ruling serves as an important reminder of the need for specific, substantive allegations when pursuing legal action, particularly in sensitive family disputes. It also highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach when deciding to quash FIRs at an early stage of investigation, emphasizing that such decisions should only be made when the case clearly falls within the exception for abuse of process.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the quashing of the FIR as against the fourth and fifth respondents was upheld, closing this chapter in what appears to be a complex family dispute involving allegations of coercion and property-related abuse.
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
