Mere Demand For Dowry Not Offence U/S 498A IPC, Simpliciter Allegation Of Intimidation Not Harassment: Delhi High Court

Post By 24law
February 14, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a mere demand for dowry does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that a simple allegation of intimidation does not amount to harassment under the said provision.

Case Background

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan made these observations while quashing an FIR registered by a wife against her husband’s relatives. The case was filed in 2019 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC, alleging harassment for dowry. The petitioner relatives, who were not immediate family members of the husband, sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that they never resided with the wife and there was no material to indicate their involvement in the alleged dowry demand. It was argued that the complainant made vague and general allegations against the petitioners without specific or corroborative evidence. The petitioners contended that their implication was a result of a common tendency to drag distant relatives into matrimonial disputes.

The complainant, Respondent No.2, married her husband, Mr. Sooruj Gupta, on 6th June 2018. The marriage was solemnized without elaborate functions to facilitate the spousal visa process for Australia. Initially, the complainant and her family were hesitant about the match but were convinced due to reassurances given by the husband’s relatives, including the petitioners. According to the complainant, after the marriage, her husband and in-laws started making dowry demands. She alleged that on 27th October 2018, during Karva Chauth, the petitioners, who are distant relatives of the husband, pressured her to either buy a property in Gurugram or transfer a flat owned by her father to her husband's name. She further alleged that the petitioners intimidated her with threats of breaking her nuptial ties if these demands were not met and justified them as an investment for the future.

On 4th November 2018, during a Diwali gathering at her maternal home, the complainant alleged that her husband's family reiterated their demands for a property and additional wedding functions. Her parents complied with the demands for jewelry and clothing, but when the demand for a property was refused, her in-laws allegedly refused to sit in the pheras on 11th December 2018, creating further discord. It was claimed that the complainant’s father-in-law misbehaved with guests at the wedding function arranged by her family. Further allegations included an incident during the complainant’s honeymoon trip to Europe. She claimed that her husband verbally abused her in public and threw a bottle at her. It was also alleged that her in-laws pressured her for ₹10 lakh as a honeymoon gift and refused to provide her with sufficient money for personal expenses.

Eventually, due to persistent harassment, the complainant returned to her maternal home on 15th February 2019. Her parents attempted to mediate the situation with the petitioners on 3rd March 2019, but they discovered that her husband and his parents had left the country. When the complainant visited her marital home in Mumbai to retrieve her belongings, she was allegedly denied entry.An FIR was filed on 10th September 2019 under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC against the husband, his parents, and the petitioners. The petitioners, who were distant relatives and did not live with the complainant, sought to quash the FIR, arguing that they were being falsely implicated and had no role in the alleged dowry demands or harassment.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted that while the complainant had made extensive allegations in the FIR, she failed to provide supporting material to substantiate claims against the petitioners. The Court stated: "Although the FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopaedia, however, it cannot be ignored that the FIR in the present case runs into several pages and Respondent No.2 (complainant) has detailed multiple facts naming the petitioners, including the reassurances given by them in relation to Mr. Sooruj's background. In such circumstances, this Court finds it unlikely that the petitioners were involved in the alleged incident on 04.11.2018."

The Court further emphasized that vague allegations of intimidation, without proof of actual harassment or cruelty, do not meet the threshold required under Section 498A IPC. It held: "Mere demand of dowry is not an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, and in the current circumstances, a simpliciter allegation of intimidation cannot be said to constitute as harassment, especially when it is the case of the complainant that the petitioners had tried to justify the same as an investment." Additionally, the Court pointed out that the petitioners never resided with the complainant and were not direct aggressors. Instead, they had been approached by the complainant’s parents to mediate the dispute, which indicated that their role in the alleged incident was not as perpetrators."They seem to have been implicated solely due to the tendency of litigants to implicate the husband and all his relatives."

Verdict

The Court found the allegations against the petitioners to be exaggerated and unsupported by concrete evidence. It ruled that allowing prosecution to continue against them would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed with respect to the petitioners.