Court Must Prevent Harassment Of Individuals Having No Substantial Involvement In Alleged Matrimonial Cruelty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court emphasised that it is the duty of the Court to prevent harassment of individuals who have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by a woman seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and consequent proceedings arising due to matrimonial discord between her deceased brother and his wife.

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “General and omnibus allegations, which are broad and non- specific cannot and, as in the present case do not withstand legal scrutiny. Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law. This misuse could result in unnecessary trials that can have long-term ramifications for all parties involved. It is the duty of the court to prevent harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty.”

The Bench remarked that while Section 498A IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband’s relatives must be checked.

Advocate Amrita Sarkar appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Sanjeev Mahajan appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

A criminal trial was initiated at the Complainant’s instance against her husband (since deceased), his sister, and their parents. It was the sister of the husband who was before the High Court, challenging the FIR. During the pendency of the proceedings, the husband died. As per the FIR, it was alleged that the parties married in 2007 and even prior to the solemnization of marriage, at the time of the engagement ceremony, demands were made by the accused persons for a diamond ring in place of gold and for a gold bracelet.

On the day of the wedding, further pressure was allegedly exerted on the Complainant’s family to provide a diamond necklace, with the threat of cancelling the wedding if the demand was not met. Post-marriage, it was alleged that the Complainant was subjected to both mental and emotional cruelty. She later discovered, to her shock, that her husband was a three-time divorcee, a fact allegedly concealed from her. In addition to verbal abuse, the Complainant stated that she and her minor daughter were wrongfully confined on multiple occasions. Moreover, it was alleged that her sister-in-law (Petitioner) and her husband stayed with them and encouraged the Complainant’s in-laws and husband to commit more domestic violence.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Admittedly, during the relevant period (October 2016 to February 2017), the petitioner’s husband was also staying with her in the same house of her parents. They were their guests ((being the married daughter and son in-law respectively) as also the guests of the complainant and her husband(since deceased). There is absolutely no allegation of any kind whatsoever against the petitioner’s husband. It is highly improbable that the petitioner, in the presence of her husband, would have been insulting, humiliating, calling the complainant disgracefully as bloody bitch so frequently that she was nicknamed as bitch.”

The Court was of the view that if at all, the Petitioner had been indulging in any such mean behaviour and conduct, her husband would have known or discovered such ugly things and naturally, he would have been uncomfortable with the same and shown his displeasure and disapproval to the Petitioner and her parental family.

“If nothing else, as a reasonable and prudent person, at least he would have withdrawn himself from the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation. Nothing of the sort is alleged to have happened. … Ex-facie all these allegations against the petitioner are without any substance and the same are not believable”, it added.

The Court remarked that no doubt, Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced to protect women from dowry related harassment and cruelty by their husbands and in-laws; however, an increased tendency to implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny, for extraneous and malicious reasons, would be its utter misuse.

“It is thus crucial to establish a prima facie case against the accused to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and ensure that the judicial process is not exploited. … Long-term ramifications of proceeding with patently unbelievable allegations and baseless cases causes unnecessary additional burden on judicial system, miscarriage of justice and has a detrimental impact on the personal life of the accused person”, it further observed.

Conclusion

The Court also noted that only if the allegations stand the legal scrutiny and prima facie exist, that proceedings in trial should then continue and for, such an approach protects innocent individuals from facing unnecessary litigation and consequential hardships, harassment and humiliation in the matrimonial crossfire.

“In the light of facts and circumstances brought out, the observations recorded in the preceding part of this order, the principles enunciated in the judgements ibid, I am of the opinion that registration of the impugned FIR and continuance of proceedings therein against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and that in order to secure he ends of justice, the said FIR as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the case against the Petitioner.

Cause Title- ABC v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8114)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Amrita Sarkar, Ashish Kumar Singh, Kartik Gupta, and Gitesh Sinha.

Respondents: APP Digam Singh Dagar, Advocates Sanjeev Mahajan, and Simran Rao.

Click here to read/download the Judgment