In Brief
An appellant-wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband and in-laws for physical harassment, dowry demands, and assault with chilli powder and stones. While one High Court judge refused to quash proceedings against the co-accused, another judge quashed the case against the husband, finding the injury evidence inconsistent with assault allegations. The Supreme Court held that judges cannot conduct mini trials by comparing medical and ocular evidence to quash proceedings; that is the trial court's role. Since the wife's injuries and an independent witness's account supported the allegations, the case could not be quashed. The Court also emphasized that inconsistent decisions from co-ordinate benches without reasoned distinction violate judicial integrity. The appeal was allowed and proceedings against the husband were revived.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.