Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga has quashed an FIR filed against a woman under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, holding that the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. The Court found no prima facie material linking the petitioner to allegations of matrimonial cruelty or dowry harassment made by her sister-in-law. Justice Monga observed that courts have a duty to prevent harassment of individuals with no substantial involvement and that general, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, being broad and non-specific, cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

The case arose from a petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 2018 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi. The FIR had been lodged by the wife of the petitioner’s brother, who later passed away during the pendency of proceedings.

Also Read: Supreme Court Launches ‘Project Ability Empowerment’, Raises Concern Over Denial of General Seats to Higher-Scoring Disabled Candidates

According to the complainant, demands for jewellery and valuables were made at the time of engagement and marriage in 2007, with threats that the marriage would be cancelled if such demands were not fulfilled. She stated that she received around 300 grams of gold and a diamond set as her Stridhan, while her in-laws gave approximately 200 grams of gold. These items were allegedly entrusted to the accused but never returned. After the birth of a daughter in 2008, the complainant alleged that she faced verbal abuse for not bearing a male child. Further demands for gold and silver articles were said to have been made in 2010 and 2012.

Additional allegations included coercion to claim a share in her parental property in 2009, discovery of an alleged extramarital relationship in 2012, wrongful confinement, threats to disown the daughter, and instances of physical assault in 2017, culminating in her being forced to leave the matrimonial home.

The allegations directed against the petitioner were limited to a period between October 2016 and February 2017, when she and her husband stayed with the complainant’s family. During this time, it was alleged that the petitioner abetted domestic violence, insulted the complainant, and frequently addressed her with derogatory language.

The petitioner argued that the FIR contained only omnibus allegations without specific acts or evidence against her. It was submitted that she had been married since 2000 and resided in different cities owing to her husband’s transferable service in the Air Force, with limited presence in the complainant’s household. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents warning against indiscriminate implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes.

The complainant, however, contended that mental cruelty falls within the scope of Section 498A IPC and maintained that the petitioner had participated in instigating harassment. The statutory provisions directly invoked were Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 34 (common intention).

Justice Arun Monga examined the FIR in detail and recorded: “Absolutely no specific date, occasion, details/particulars or any overt or covert acts of the petitioner have been mentioned in the FIR, from which it could be deduced that the petitioner had conspired with, abetted and encouraged the accused no.1 to commit domestic violence and cruelty upon the complainant and her daughter.”

The Court noted that the petitioner was married in 2000 and lived with her husband, who was in transferable service. “This factual position is not refuted on record or otherwise disputed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2,” the Court stated. It further observed: “It is highly improbable that the petitioner would have verbally and emotionally abused, humiliated and ridiculed the complainant for not giving birth to a male child.”

With respect to the allegation of derogatory remarks, the Court observed: “It is highly improbable that the petitioner, in the presence of her husband, would have been insulting, humiliating, calling the complainant disgracefully as bloody bitch so frequently that she was nicknamed as bitch.”

The judgment stated that allegations against the petitioner were “ex-facie without any substance and the same are not believable.” The Court noted that the trial had not progressed for five years since the FIR in 2018, which further weighed in favour of quashing.

Citing Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court recorded: “It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.”

Further citing Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), the Court observed: “False implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”

The Court also recorded: “General and omnibus allegations, which are broad and non-specific cannot and, as in the present case do not withstand legal scrutiny. Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Law Commission Recommendations on Amendments to Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act for Unfilled Higher Education Seats

Justice Monga directed: “In the light of facts and circumstances brought out, the observations recorded in the preceding part of this order, the principles enunciated in the judgements ibid, I am of the opinion that registration of the impugned FIR and continuance of proceedings therein against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and that in order to secure the ends of justice, the said FIR as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.”

“Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR No. 352/2018 dated 08.12.2018 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings as against the petitioner are quashed, with consequences to follow.” The Court further directed that “The interim order staying of the trial, which, in any case, was only confined to the petitioner, stands vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Ms. Amrita Sarkar, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Mr. Kartik Gupta, and Mr. Gitesh Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State; Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Ms. Simran Rao, Advocates

Case Title: XXX v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8114
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2561/2023
Bench: Justice Arun Monga