‘Where would someone go to satisfy sexual urges if it wasn’t his partner’: HC quashes dowry FIR

Judge Anish Kumar Gupta dismissed the case against Pranjal Shukla and two others, ruling that the evidence in the FIR and witness statements did not support the claims of dowry harassment.

The court noted that the main allegations related to disagreements over the couple’s sexual relationship and the woman’s refusal to engage in certain activities. It concluded that these disputes were not indicative of dowry demands and were more likely caused by personal differences.

“It is clear that the dispute relates to the sexual incompatibility of the parties for which the dispute existed between the parties and as a result of the said dispute, the immediate FIR has been filed by the opposite party raising the false and fabricated allegations regarding to the demand for a dowry,” the court said.

“If a man demanded sexual favors from his own wife and vice versa, where would they go to satisfy their physical sexual urges in a morally civilized society?” the court wondered.

The FIR had accused Shukla of demanding dowry and engaging in abuse, including forcing his wife to watch porn and engage in unnatural sex. However, the court found that these allegations were not supported by credible evidence. According to the facts of the case, Meesha Shukla married appellant Pranjal Shukla on December 7, 2015, as per Hindu rituals and customs. Meesha has filed an FIR over dowry demand by her in-laws namely Madhu Sharma and Punya Sheel Sharma. However, the FIR categorically states that there was no demand for money prior to the marriage. In the FIR, the complainant alleged that Pranjal drank and watched pornographic films and insisted on having unnatural sex with her wife. When she objected, he paid no attention to her objections, it said. The FIR also states that the applicant left her wife and went to Singapore alone.

The Pranjal’s lawyer, senior advocate Vinay Saran, submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the statements of the opposite party (wife) relate to their physical relationship and the applicant’s unnatural sexual activities.

The abuse alleged in the woman’s statement relates to the failure to satisfy the applicant’s sexual urges and not to the cruelty committed in demanding dowry.

Regarding this, the court observed: “The close examination of the FIR and the statement of the victim shows that the torture or sexual assault, if any, is not carried out due to a demand for dowry, but due to refusal of the opposite party to satisfy the sexual urges of the applicant.”

The court in its order dated October 3 quashed the case against Pranjal and stated, “In the considered opinion of this court, the present FIR is nothing but a fabricated story of demand of dowry by making general and vague allegations against the petitioners herein.”