Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Doesn't Negate The Existence of Genuine Cases: Delhi High Court

Post By 24law
February 15, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has observed that while Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, is often misused to implicate husbands and their families in matrimonial disputes, this does not negate the existence of genuine cases of dowry-related harassment and cruelty. Justice Amit Mahajan, while quashing an FIR registered under Section 498A against a husband, emphasized: "This Court is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry, due to which, numerous victims are subjected to unspeakable conduct and harassment."

Background of the Case

The case pertained to an FIR (No. 262/2017) registered at the behest of the wife against her husband and his family members, alleging harassment due to dowry demands and non-return of her stridhan. The couple had married in December 2011, and the wife claimed that soon after marriage, she was taunted for insufficient dowry, including for not gifting a Honda City car. She further alleged that she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home in July 2014 and that her mobile phone, ATM cards, and jewelry were withheld. Additionally, she claimed to have suffered a miscarriage due to constant mental and physical torture. The complaint also accused the husband and his father of falsely maligning her character. The FIR, however, was registered in 2017—over three years after the alleged incidents, and after the husband had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

Court's Observations

Justice Mahajan noted the increasing tendency of implicating husbands and their families in matrimonial litigation, stating: "Courts have taken note of the increasing tendency of implicating the husband and his family in matrimonial litigation in a number of cases. While the provision of Section 498A of the IPC was introduced with an object to combat harassment meted out to married woman… however, it is abysmal to note that the same is now also being misused as a tool to harass the husband and his family members and gain a leverage. Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events."

The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR were vague and lacked specific details regarding time, date, or particulars of alleged harassment. Furthermore, although the complaint was initially lodged against the husband and his family members, the charge sheet was filed only against the husband. "In the current case as well, sweeping and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. No date or time or particulars of the alleged instances of demand for dowry or harassment have been specified in the FIR."

The Court also took note of a complaint dated May 9, 2015, by the complainant’s father, which suggested that the petitioner had refused to take dowry at the time of marriage, and that the primary discord was between the petitioner’s family and the complainant. The Court stated: "No allegations in relation to any such threats have been levelled in the FIR, however, it cannot be ignored that even in the complaint, no specific incident of harassment by the husband for dowry was spelt out. On the other hand, the complaint seems to suggest that the petitioner refused to take dowry at the time of marriage and the rancour was between the petitioner's family and Respondent No.2."

Delay in Filing the Complaint

A crucial factor in the Court's decision was the substantial delay in filing the FIR. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), which held that unexplained delays in lodging complaints could indicate an attempt to harass the accused. The Court observed: "In the present case as well, no explanation has been provided as to why she had remained silent and not initiated any action against the petitioner for over three years after being ousted from her matrimonial home."

Quashing the FIR

The Court found that the allegations appeared to be an afterthought and a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband. It also noted that the petitioner had obtained an ex-parte divorce decree on grounds of cruelty and that the complainant had not challenged the decree. "That is not to say that genuine cases of harassment don’t exist. This Court is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry, due to which, numerous victims are subjected to unspeakable conduct and harassment. However, in matters such as this, where vague allegations have been made against the petitioner, that too belatedly, in the opinion of this Court, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law." Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the husband.