UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

IN PETITION NO.__ /21__

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SAMARVEER………………………………………………………………………...PETITIONER

VERSUS

PREETI…………………………………………..…………………………………...RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED TO THE REGISTRY OF

THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 6-7

5 ISSUES RAISED 8

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

7 ARGUMENT ADVANCED 10-16

8 PRAYER 17

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. CRPC The code of criminal procedure, 1973

3. Hon’ble Honorable

4. IPC The Indian Penal Code,

1860

5. u/s Under Section

6. SC Supreme Court

7. SCC Supreme Court Cases

8. HC High Court

9. Sec. Section

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURT CASES:

1. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr (1996) 9 SCC 766 (India)
2. State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 (India)
3. Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 (India)
4. Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 (India).
5. State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 (India).
6. State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 (India).
7. Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384 (India).

STATUTES:
 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
 THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT , 1961
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

BOOKS:

 PSA PILLAI'S CRIMINAL LAW (14Th Edition book)

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent in responding to the petition no.________/2021 u/s 482 of CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. INTRODUCTORY
Samarveer, aged about 26 years is a successful entrepreneur and lives in Lucknow with his
family which includes his father, mother and younger sister. He gets in Preeti through a
dating app, a 24-year-old girl based in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Samarveer & Preeti start talking
regularly and ultimately fall in love with each other. They get married on 18.05.2020 as per
Sikh rites & ceremonies in Gurgaon with full pomp and show. After their marriage, Preeti
starts residing with Samarveer in Lucknow along with his family. While Samarveer is out
for work. Preeti spends most her day at home idly de going out with her friends for
shopping, events, etc. Preeti is not forced to do any household work by her in-laws as they
have sufficient house help.

2. CAUSE OF ACTION
On 30.12.2020, Preeti's mother-in-law asks Preeti to make food for the entire family, to
which Preeti blatantly refuses. She tells her mother-in-law that she had informed before
marriage that she will not do any household work. The mother-in-law replies by saying
that what will happen if you cook for one day as the house-help is away. Preeti's sister-in-
law also joins her mother and starts questioning the lifestyle of Preeti. In the meanwhile,
Samarveer comes home and is shocked to see his mother & sister fighting with Preeti. He
tries to stop everyone from fighting, but to no use. In order to control the situation,
Samarveer pulls Preeti inside their room and locks her inside.

3. FILING OF FIR
On the very next day i.e., 31.12.2020, Preeti leaves her in-laws house and goes back to her
family in Jaipur. Samarveer tries calling her a few times, however, she would not return his
calls. On 05.01.2020, Samarveer is shocked to find out that an FIR bearing no. 110 dated
03.01.2020 has been registered in Gurgaon against him, his father, mother and younger
sister under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Complainant has alleged that her parents had spent a lot
of money on her marriage and given gifts to all family members of her husband. However,
6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
her mother-in-law & sister-in-law still used to harass her for dowry and make persistent
demands for the same. The Complainant tried talking to her husband and father-in-law
regarding the same, but they told her everything was fine, and she did not need to worry. It
is also stated that on the day of the alleged incident, Complainant's father-in-law was not at
home.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ISSUES RAISED

[I]
Whether the FIR should be quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and false allegations?

[II]

Whether the grounds for quashing the F.I.R are made out?

[III]

Whether the actions of the petitioners constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC
and dowry harassment under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[I]
Whether the FIR should be quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and false allegations?
The FIR should not be quashed due to sufficient grounds of jurisdiction and credible allegations.
The FIR filed in Gurgaon is valid and maintainable under law. Respondent’s claims of dowry
harassment and mental cruelty reveal a clear prima facie case, and the FIR must not be quashed merely
on procedural grounds of territorial jurisdiction.

[II]
Whether the grounds for quashing the F.I.R are made out?

The Respondent, contends that the grounds for quashing the FIR No. 110 dated 03.01.2020,
registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, are not
substantiated. The Respondent argues that the FIR has been filed based on valid claims of dowry
harassment and cruelty, which warrant a proper investigation and should not be quashed

[III]
Whether the actions of the petitioners constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC and
dowry harassment under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
The actions of the petitioners constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC and dowry harassment
under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent’s complaints of continuous
dowry harassment, coupled with mental cruelty inflicted by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, are
legitimate and backed by precedents from the Supreme Court that recognize the widespread issue of
dowry harassment in matrimonial cases.

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[I]
Whether the FIR should be quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and false allegations?

The FIR should not be quashed as the grounds for jurisdiction are valid, and the allegations hold
merit. The marriage between the respondents and petitioners and respondents took place at Gurgaon
at the time of marriage the family of the petitioner demanded dowry, but their demands were
partially satisfied.

Later during the subsistence of marriage the petitioner along with his family (which includes his
father, mother and younger sister) again started harassing the respondent demanding more dowry.

As per sec 177 of CrPC : Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Therefore the F.I.R is validly registered in Gurgaon where the dowry was demanded.

In Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr1, the Supreme Court held that an FIR should not
easily be quashed if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Furthermore, in State of Haryana
vs Bhajan Lal2, the Court laid down guidelines for quashing an FIR, emphasizing that the
allegations must be scrutinized to determine if they constitute an offence.

1. Sufficiency of Allegations

The Respondent, has made specific and detailed allegations of harassment and mental cruelty. She has
alleged that:

Dowry demands were made by the petitioner along with his family (which includes his father, mother and
younger sister) Despite significant financial contribution to the marriage by her family, Respondent was
subjected to repeated demands for more money and gifts.
She faced mental cruelty and emotional abuse, especially from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, for
not fulfilling dowry demands.
On December 30, 2020, she was humiliated and harassed, which culminated in her being locked inside

1
(1996) 9 SCC 766
2
(1992) (1) SCC 335
10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
her room by her husband when she sought his help.
These allegations, if proven, fall squarely within the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of the
IPC and constitute an offense under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

- The Respondent asserts that the FIR contains specific allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty
by the Petitioners. These allegations are sufficient to warrant a formal investigation rather than
immediate dismissal.

2. Judicial Precedent on FIRs

- The Respondent highlights that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the quashing of an
FIR should be an exception rather than a rule. The courts should exercise restraint in quashing FIRs,
especially in cases involving serious allegations such as dowry harassment.

In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar3, the Supreme Court highlighted the misuse
of Section 498-A but stressed that credible allegations must be thoroughly investigated.

3. Right to Fair Investigation

- Quashing the FIR would deny the Respondent her right to a fair investigation into her allegations.
The FIR serves as a crucial starting point for law enforcement to conduct a thorough inquiry into the
claims made by the Respondent.

4. Substantial Evidence of Cruelty and Harassment:

- The Respondent argues that there is substantial evidence to support her claims of cruelty and dowry
harassment, including witness testimonies and communications that indicate ongoing harassment by
the Petitioners.

5. Public Interest and Social Justice

- The Respondent emphasizes that dowry harassment cases are significant in the context of social
justice and women's rights. Quashing the FIR would undermine the legal protections available to
women facing such challenges.

The Respondent argues that the grounds for quashing the FIR are not substantiated. The allegations
made in the FIR warrant a proper investigation and should be allowed to proceed. The Respondent
respectfully requests the court to dismiss the Petitioners’ application for quashing the FIR and to allow

3
(2014) 8 SCC 273
11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
the matter to be thoroughly examined in the appropriate legal forum.

6. Burden of Proof at the FIR Stage:

At the stage of filing an FIR, the burden on the complainant is not to prove the case beyond doubt but
to establish a prima facie case that warrants investigation. In State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, 4,
the court held that the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 CrPC should not be invoked to
quash proceedings unless it is manifest that there is no case made out or the allegations are absurd.

In the present case, Respondent’s allegations, when taken at face value, demonstrate that a prima facie
case of dowry harassment and cruelty has been made out. At this stage, her FIR should not be quashed,
and the investigation should proceed.

[II]
Whether the grounds for quashing the F.I.R. are made out?

1. LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING QUASHING OF FIR

Quashing of FIRs is governed by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants
inherent powers to the High Courts to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
However, the courts have repeatedly held that FIRs should only be quashed in rare circumstances
where the complaint:

(a) Does not disclose a prima facie case.

(b) Is manifestly attended with mala fides.
(c) Is vexatious or an abuse of the process of law.

2. QUASHING AN FIR AT AN EARLY STAGE IMPAIRS THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

a. Scope of Investigation:
The stage of quashing is not the appropriate forum for examining evidence. FIRs are registered to
4
(2002) 3 SCC 89
12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
initiate an investigation into allegations. The investigation process itself is crucial for determining the
veracity of the claims made by the complainant. In the case of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, 5,
the Supreme Court held that:
"The truthfulness of the allegations and the evidence collected during the investigation is a matter of
trial and cannot be determined at the stage of quashing the FIR."

The investigation must be allowed to proceed to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and verify
Respondent’s claims.

b. Premature Quashing and Its Consequences:

Premature quashing of the FIR will deny the Respondent her right to seek justice. In matrimonial
cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to allow investigations to proceed unless
the allegations are clearly frivolous, which is not the case here.

3. THE PETITIONER’S GROUNDS FOR QUASHING ARE WITHOUT MERIT

The petitioners are likely to argue that the FIR is the result of a domestic dispute or that it is lodged
with ulterior motives. However, mere allegations of domestic disputes do not provide grounds for
quashing an FIR when the complaint involves allegations of criminal offenses such as cruelty and
dowry harassment.

a. Criminal Offense:
In matrimonial cases, while there may be a family dispute, criminal conduct such as harassment for
dowry and cruelty cannot be overlooked. In Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh6, the Supreme Court
held that harassment and cruelty under Section 498-A IPC extend beyond physical violence and
include emotional and psychological abuse as well. Respondent’s claims fall within this extended
definition.

b. No Evidence of Malicious Filing:

The FIR does not indicate any malice or intent to harass the petitioners. Instead, it reflects
Respondent’s genuine distress and desire for justice. The petitioners’ assertion that the FIR is false or
malicious must be proven during trial, not at this stage.

5
(2005) 13 SCC 540
6
(2019) 5 SCC 384
13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 [III]
Whether the actions of the petitioners constitute cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC and
dowry harassment under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961??

According to sec 498A of IPC : Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

The Respondent, contends that the FIR No. 110 dated 03.01.2020, registered under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, satisfies all the necessary
legal ingredients required for prosecution under these provisions. The Respondent argues that her
allegations clearly indicate instances of cruelty and demands for dowry, thereby warranting a thorough
investigation.

1. Gist of Section 498A IPC

- Section 498A IPC states that any husband or relative of the husband of a woman shall be punished
for cruelty. The Respondent's FIR contains specific allegations that the Petitioners subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty.

In Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi7, the Supreme Court held that cruelty includes both physical and
mental harassment. The Court stated, "The word 'cruelty' has been used in relation to human conduct
or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations."

2. Definition of Dowry as the sec -3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years,
and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such
dowry, whichever is more:

7
(1988) 1 SCC 105
14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2)
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having
been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under
this Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand
having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under
this Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related
to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having
regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.

As per sec 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents
or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may
extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

- Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act prohibit the demand of dowry and prescribe
punishment for the same. The FIR clearly indicates that the Petitioners made demands for additional
gifts and monetary benefits post-marriage.

3. Cumulative Nature of Allegation

- The allegations in the FIR demonstrate a pattern of behavior by the Petitioners that constitutes both
cruelty and dowry demands. The Respondent argues that these allegations are interconnected and
provide a comprehensive picture of the harassment faced by her.

4. Presumption of Innocence and Right to Investigate

- The Respondent argues that the FIR should be allowed to proceed as it presents a legitimate basis
15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
for investigation into her allegations. The burden of proof lies with the Petitioners to disprove the
claims made against them.

5. Social Context of the Offenses

- The Respondent emphasizes the societal importance of addressing issues related to dowry and
domestic cruelty. The enforcement of laws like Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is
crucial for protecting women and promoting justice.

The Respondent submits that the FIR satisfies all necessary ingredients of Section 498A IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations presented warrant a thorough
investigation and legal proceedings to address the serious nature of the claims. The Respondent
respectfully requests the court to reject the Petitioners' application and allow the FIR to proceed as
filed.

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 PRAYER

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Dismiss the petition for quashing the FIR bearing no. 110 dated 03.01.2020 registered against the
petitioners.

Recognize the validity of the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty under Section 498-A of the
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

And/Or

Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

And for this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-
(Counsels on behalf of the Respondent)

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT