While quashing a summoning order issued against a wife in case of defamation instituted at the behest of her husband, the Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of impotency raised by the wife in the FIR gave rise to the institution of a case under Section 498-A of the IPC, and the same would not be termed defamatory.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of a summoning order passed in a Complaint Case filed under Section 500 of the I.P.C.

The Single Bench of Justice Achal Sachdev held, “The marriage was entered into by concealment of medical condition of opposite party no.3. The fact that was raised for the first time by applicant in her FIR, which has given rise to Case Crime No.0169 of 2024 u/s 498-A, 406, 354-A, 34 of IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave, District North West of Delhi. It clearly shows that the statement has been made in good faith without malice towards opposite party no.3 and her statement is substantiated by medical examination report of opposite party no.3, therefore, the order impugned has been passed without considering these aspects and is liable to be set aside.”

Advocate Anshuman Singh represented the Appellant while Advocate Ashok Kumar represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The matter emanates from an FIR wherein the allegation of dowry demand was made, and in the complaint, the informant wife had alleged absence of physical intimacy with her husband (third opposite party). It was further alleged that the marriage did not get consummated on the wedding night, and further claimed that the opposite party was impotent. As per the applicant, the opposite party-husband had filed a false and frivolous complaint under Sections 499 & 500 IPC, and the Trial Court, without due application of judicial mind, passed the summoning order against the applicant.

Arguments

It was the applicant’s case that the imputation made in a criminal complaint against the husband by the applicant was substantiated by a medical examination report, and it was never intended as malicious towards him.

On the contrary, the opposite party argued that the applicant had called him impotent in front of her family members, and he had received a phone call from the Police Station informing him that the applicant had filed a complaint against him alleging his impotency, upon which the police had asked him to get medically examined. It was claimed that his image was badly tainted as the whole issue spread throughout his family and society.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the statement in relation to the opposite party being an impotent person was made for the first time in the FIR and not in a judicial proceeding.

The Bench explained that a statement made in good faith to a person having lawful authority over the subject matter will not amount to defamation, as the same is covered under Exception 8 of Section 499 I.P.C. (Exception 8 of Section 356 B.N.S.). The Bench further explained that a complaint to a police falls squarely within Exception 8 to Section 499 I.P.C.

“The person making the imputation enjoys the protection that has been provided under Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC if the imputation is not made with a malice intent to injure but as a part of a genuine grievance but had it been made maliciously with no connection to the actual complaint or had it been publicized beyond the complaint by sharing the same on social media or it is demonstrably false and has been made with the knowledge of its falsity or is irrelevant and inserted only to embarrass or injure the husband the protection would not be available”, it added.

The Bench took note of the fact that the applicant is the wife of the third opposite party, and her main allegation was that her husband was impotent, due to which he was unable to consummate the marriage on the wedding night, which had caused her great anxiety, and thereafter she was harassed by her in-laws and other relatives for the demand of additional dowry.

The Bench noted that the marriage was entered into by concealment of the medical condition of the husband. According to the Bench, the applicant’s statement was made in good faith without malice towards her husband and the same was substantiated by the medical examination report.

Thus, allowing the application, the Bench quashed the summoning order.

Cause Title: A v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:112914)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Anshuman Singh, Vinay Kumar Dubey

Opposite Party: Advocate Ashok Kumar, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order




Allahabad High CourtJustice Achal Sachdev

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.