It is definitely most alarming to note that there is an increasing trend of most blatant, brazen, blind, baseless and brutal misuse of Section 498A IPC that keeps on surfacing in news one after the other. Most recently, we witnessed how the Delhi High Court which is one of the most esteemed High Court in India with stellar track record in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajay vs State & Anr in Crl.M.C. 4689/2019 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:746 that was pronounced as recently as on 07.02.2025 has expressed its serious concern about the gross misuse of Section 498A (cruelty to married women) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), noting that although it was meant to protect married women, it is now being used as a tool to harass husbands and their families. Even Supreme Court also has in many cases noted similarly the growing chilling abuse of Section 498A IPC which definitely cannot go unnoticed. Why should women and her relatives not be punished for levelling false allegations and send to jail for at least few years?
It is high time and to say the least, what Justice Malimath Committee appointed to recommend reforms in the criminal justice system headed under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr Justice VS Malimath who is former Chief Justice of Karnataka and Kerala High Court, former Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and so also former Member of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) about 22 years ago in 2003 who had very strongly recommended that Section 498A IPB should be made compoundable and bailable so that there is less misuse and disputes between husband and wife don’t end in divorce quickly needs to be implemented at the earliest! Absolutely right! It is most unfortunate that even in the revised penal laws we see no such changes which makes me hang my head in shame as the old laws have been copy pasted which definitely cannot be ever justified! I had never expected this from our learned law makers!
In the same vein, we need to also note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan who authored this most sagacious judgment clarified that the Court is not blind to the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry, due to which numerous victims are subjected to unspeakable conduct and harassment. But the Bench was quick to further point out that there was an increasing tendency to misuse Section 498A IPC by misrepresenting actual events to gain leverage. No denying it!
Interestingly enough, we need to note that the Bench made the key observation while it quashed a First Information Report (FIR) that had been registered by a woman against her estranged husband and his family members on most serious allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. It observed that the wife had made vague allegations after years of delay. The Bench concluded that the continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law. So it was but quite ostensible that the Bench deemed it absolutely fit in the fitness of things to allow his plea and accordingly quashed the maliciously imposed case! Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the FIR No. 262/2017 dated 06.10.2017, registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, for offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. The present FIR was registered at the behest of Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and his family members alleging harassment on the ground of demand for dowry and for not returning her stridhan. The marriage of the petitioner and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.12.2011 and it is alleged that Rs 10 lakhs were spent in the marriage.
2.2. It is alleged that only a few days after marriage, the petitioner, and his family, including, his father, mother, and brother, started taunting Respondent No.2 that even though the petitioner earns Rs 6 lakhs/month and they had gotten many marriages offers for him, however, they got him married to Respondent No.2 as they thought her father, who is a government officer, will match their status. It was further alleged that Respondent No.2’s in-laws stated that they were expecting a Honda City car, but her father had not even gifted a bike.
2.3. It is alleged that the petitioner and his family members used to taunt Respondent No.2 that her father was a greedy person as he had given no gold items, bike, or car to them. It is further alleged that the complainant suffered the cruelty owing to the poor financial status of her father, and by each passing day, the taunts and demands became more aggressive.
2.4. It is alleged that even though the father of Respondent No.2 called the panchayat multiple times, however, on 13.07.2014, Respondent No.2 was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home. It is alleged that Respondent No.2’s mobile phone, 3 ATM cards, gold- silver jewelry were also not returned. Due to the constant mental and physical torture, Respondent No.2 allegedly suffered miscarriage.
2.5. In the year 2014, the petitioner came to the maternal home of Respondent No.2 and tried to fraudulently take a divorce from her by assuring her that she would suffer no more torture or humiliation. It is alleged that the petitioner and his father also made allegations against Respondent No.2 that she is a characterless woman and she was not given back her stridhan despite several requests.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 21 that, “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.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 22 that, “As noted above, when quashing of an FIR is sought on the ground that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, this Court owes a duty to look beyond the allegations into ancillary circumstances as well.”
Do further note, the Bench then notes in para 23 that, “At this juncture, before proceeding further, it is important to take note of the complaint made by Respondent No.2’s father on 09.05.2015 to the SHO of Police Station Dhaula Kuan. The complainant’s father, in his complaint dated 09.05.2015, has made sweeping allegations of harassment on account of demand of dowry. It is stated in the said complaint that the petitioner’s family members had harassed the complainant for dowry after the petitioner had left on ship as he was employed in merchant navy. Certain allegations in relation to the petitioner and his family threatening to misuse the alleged obscene photos and videos of complainant for defaming the complainant’s family are also made.”
Quite significantly, the Bench notes in para 24 that, “No allegations in relation to any such threats have been levelled in the FIR, however, it cannot be ignored that even in the complaint dated 09.05.2015, no specific incident of harassment by the petitioner for dowry has been 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.”
Notably, the Bench then also notes in para 25 that, “No evidence was found against the family members of the petitioner either. In such circumstances, this Court finds merit in the contention of the petitioner that the allegations appear to be an afterthought and counterblast to the divorce petition.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Bench notes in para 26 that, “The petitioner has obtained a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty way back on 23.08.2019, where it has been noted that Respondent No.2 was involved in voluntary physical intimacy with her boyfriend. It is pointed out that Respondent No.2 has not challenged the same.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most remarkably, what definitely cannot and should not escape our singular unremitting attention and what truly constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 27 wherein it is postulated that, “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. 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.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 28 that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, FIR No. 262/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by holding in para 29 that, “The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
Author Bio
