Section 498A IPC Applicable Even If Marriage Later Declared Invalid; Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Misappropriation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, dealing with cruelty by a husband or his relatives extends even to relationships later declared invalid, as long as the parties had lived as husband and wife. The ruling came while quashing an FIR lodged under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC against the petitioner, in which the complainant had alleged cruelty and misappropriation of jewellery arising out of a purported marital relationship. The Court found that the alleged marriage had already been declared null and void by a Family Court and that the complaint lacked specific and corroborated allegations of cruelty or entrustment. It held that further prosecution would amount to abuse of the legal process and ordered the FIR and all related proceedings to be quashed.
The case concerned a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by three individuals seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Vikas Puri. The complaint was made by a woman who alleged that she was married to one of the petitioners according to Hindu customs in 2007 at an Arya Samaj Mandir, and that after marriage she lived with him along with her two daughters from a previous marriage. She claimed that her parents had given dowry at the time of the marriage and that the petitioner later subjected her to harassment, withdrew funds from their joint bank account, and misappropriated her jewellery valued at approximately forty lakh rupees. It was further alleged that when confronted, the petitioner and his sons threatened her and issued two cheques for forty lakh rupees, both of which were dishonoured.
The petitioner asserted that the complaint was false and motivated, contending that the complainant’s previous marriage had not been legally dissolved at the time of their alleged marriage, rendering it void ab initio under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He stated that the complainant had concealed material facts, misused the legal process, and fabricated a marriage certificate. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had been acquitted earlier in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the same cheques, and that the allegations of cruelty and misappropriation were unsubstantiated.
The State submitted a status report confirming that a chargesheet had been filed under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC. The complainant’s counsel reiterated the allegations of dowry harassment and financial exploitation.
The Court observed: “Vide Judgment dated 05.05.2022, the Ld. Judge, Family Court (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi has declared the alleged marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 performed on 27.08.2007 as null and void, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” It further recorded that “the Respondent No.2 has been restrained from calling herself the wife of Petitioner No.1 and from using the said Marriage Certificate or any photographs depicting them as husband and wife.”
The Court stated that “the expression ‘husband’ covers a person who enters into a marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband, subjects the woman concerned to cruelty.” It concluded that “even if the marriage is subsequently declared technically invalid, Section 498A IPC would still be applicable.”
Assessing the allegations, the Court stated that “the FIR alleges that Respondent No.2’s parents ‘to their capacity have given dowry in the marriage’ but does not specify the nature, quantum, or details of the alleged dowry items except later making a broad claim of jewellery worth Rs. 40 lakhs.” It noted that the complainant had earlier filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on dishonoured cheques and that “the Complainant failed to establish the existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability.”
On cruelty, the Court recorded that “the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out from the Complaint… even if admitted in toto, [the allegations] would not be enough to prove an offence.” It added that “the allegations are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, focusing primarily on unsubstantiated claims and broad threats without specific dates or circumstances.”
The Court stated that “in respect of the joint bank account, the very nature of joint ownership negates the concept of entrustment, as both account holders possess equal rights of withdrawal.” It found that “no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out in the Complaint.”
Finally, applying the principles in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court observed that “where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint… do not disclose the commission of any offence, the FIR may be quashed,” and held that “there is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioner.”
The Court ordered “that the present Petition is allowed and FIR No.73/2015 dated 22.01.2015 under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Vikas Puri along with the subsequent proceedings, is hereby, quashed. Accordingly, the pending Application(s), if any, are accordingly disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State with SI Devender Yadav; Mr. Mahinder Singh, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Case Title: Om Saran Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9635
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1641/2021
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
