The Allahabad High Court recently quashed dowry charges against Pranjal Shukla, concluding that the allegations stemmed more from personal disputes than legitimate claims of harassment.
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta emphasized that in a “morally civilized society,” partners should naturally fulfill each other’s physical and sexual needs.
The case against Shukla and two co-accused was dismissed after the court found insufficient evidence in the FIR and witness statements to support the dowry harassment claims. The court highlighted that the primary issues revolved around the couple’s sexual relationship, particularly disagreements over the wife’s unwillingness to engage in certain activities, which were mischaracterized as dowry demands.
“It is apparent that the dispute is with regard to the sexual incompatibility of the parties,” the court stated. “Due to this dispute, the instant FIR has been lodged by the opposite party, making false and concocted allegations concerning the demand for dowry.”
The allegations against Shukla included claims of demanding dowry and subjecting his wife to abusive behaviors, such as forcing her to watch pornography and insisting on unnatural sex. However, the court noted a lack of credible evidence supporting these accusations.
The couple, Meesha and Pranjal Shukla, married on December 7, 2015, according to Hindu rites. In her FIR, Meesha claimed that her in-laws, Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma, had demanded dowry, although she admitted that no monetary demands were made before the marriage.
Meesha alleged that Pranjal would drink excessively, watch pornographic films, and pressure her into engaging in unnatural sexual acts. When she objected, he allegedly ignored her concerns, and the FIR also claimed he left her to travel to Singapore alone.
Senior advocate Vinay Saran, representing Pranjal, argued that the allegations were focused on their physical relationship rather than any cruel treatment related to dowry demands. He contended that the complaints detailed the wife’s refusal to fulfill Pranjal’s sexual urges, not the kind of cruelty typically associated with dowry cases.
The court, upon close examination of the FIR and the victim’s statements, noted, “The torture or any assault, if any, is meted out not for any demand of dowry but on refusal of the opposite party to fulfill the sexual urges of the applicant.” In its ruling on October 3, the court deemed the FIR a “concocted story” designed to falsely depict a dowry demand through vague and general allegations against the accused.
This judgment underscores the necessity for courts to scrutinize the basis of such allegations carefully, distinguishing between legitimate claims and those motivated by personal grievances.
