Noting that gifts exchanged during marriage are usually not treated as dowry, the Allahabad High Court stayed criminal proceedings against three individuals charged under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the UP Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that the allegations may be an afterthought and required closer scrutiny, directing the State and the informant to submit counter-affidavits.
Co-accused Faraz Ather, a Muslim, was reportedly in a relationship with the deceased woman, a Hindu. The couple had planned to marry and, on December 6, 2024, submitted affidavits before the Delhi Marriage Registrar for a civil marriage, with the woman allegedly affirming her decision to marry while retaining her Hindu faith.
However, she died by suicide on December 12. Following her death, her father filed the present FIR, naming Ather, his brother (Applicant No. 1), sister (Applicant No. 2), and mother (Applicant No. 3) as accused.
The four accused were alleged to have demanded dowry and pressured the deceased to convert to Islam. Contesting the criminal proceedings, three of them approached the High Court, claiming their only involvement was attending a pre-marriage event. They argued that the FIR did not allege any specific act on their part and that the main accusations of dowry demand and religious conversion were solely directed at Faraz, the deceased’s partner.
The applicants also cited a missing person complaint filed by Faraz with Delhi Police after he lost contact with the woman, and noted that her father, in requesting a post-mortem, had described it as a suicide. They further highlighted that, as per the prosecution’s case, they had not received any dowry, and contended that the deceased died by suicide allegedly due to pressure from her mother and sister to withdraw from the marriage.
On the other hand, the counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the applicants’ plea, relying on statements from the deceased’s mother and sister dated December 28, 2024, which alleged forced conversion and dowry demands by the applicants.
However, he failed to present any proof of actual dowry being paid, merely asserting that the amount given during the Roka ceremony—a customary pre-wedding event—qualified as dowry. Considering these submissions, the bench initially noted that gifts exchanged during marriage ceremonies are typically not considered dowry.
The bench also noted that the claims of dowry demand and forced conversion emerged only in statements recorded 17 days after the woman’s death and were not mentioned earlier by her father, the informant.
“The gifts given in the marriage normally are not taken as dowry. The statements of the sister and the mother of the deceased were recorded on 28.12.2024 although the deceased had died on 11.12.2024. It has not been shown as to why the aforesaid allegations were not informed to the father of the deceased, who is the informant and why the statements have been raised at the first instance with police authorities on 28.12.2024”, the bench noted.
Terming the allegations as possibly an ‘afterthought’, the Court observed that the matter required thorough scrutiny and directed the State and the informant to file counter-affidavits. It also ordered a stay on proceedings against the applicants until the next hearing. However, the Court clarified that proceedings against co-accused Faraz could continue in accordance with the law.
