Growing Tendency To Rope In Husband’s Distant Relatives; Omnibus, Sweeping Implications Dilute Sanctity Of Section 498A IPC: Delhi High Court

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A,406,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “It needs no reiteration that Section 498A of the IPC was inserted in the year 1983 with a view to curb the scourge and manifestations of crimes related to demand of dowry. For this reason, Section 498A of the IPC was incorporated with the object to protect women from cruelty at the hands of her husband or his relatives. However, as observed by Courts in a plethora of judgments, there has been a growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives of husbands being uncles, aunts, extended family members - who do not even reside at the matrimonial house of the woman and even in the dearth of evidence to highlight their active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty solely for the reason that such relatives may have been privy to the matrimonial acrimony of the parties. Such omnibus, sweeping and mechanical implication, however, bereft of concrete evidence, dilutes the very intent and sanctity with which the provision was incorporated.”

Advocate Biraja Mahapatra represented the Petitioner, while ASC Rupali Bandopadhya represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant wife alleged that her husband and his family members, including her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, aunt (massi) and the aunt’s daughter had tortured and assaulted the respondent wife in relation to the demand of dowry. The marriage of the Respondent wife and the husband was solemnised in the year 2019. It was alleged that before her marriage, her in-laws had strictly instructed the wife’s parents that the marriage ought to be conducted lavishly, and consequently her parents spent approximately Rs 30 lakh in the marriage. The wife’s father had also given the husband some amount after his downfall.

It was alleged that the husband, mother-in-law and her sister-in-law tortured her on every occasion. It was alleged that they also refused her as well as her husband to go for regular visits to the doctor when she was pregnant. It was alleged that her husband and her in-laws forced her to drink alcohol along with them. In her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Respondent wife stated that her stridhan, gifts, as well as jewellery received during her marriage and at the time of the birth of her son were in the possession of her husband, in-laws and the petitioners. Chargesheet was then filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench affirmed, “It is true that in case it is found that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or are instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, this Court ought to look into the FIR with care and little more closely. The Court can look into the attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case and can read between the lines. If the allegations are far-fetched and it appears that the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC are misused, the Court can interfere while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.”

The Bench noted that the case of the prosecution that the Respondent wife was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and her in-laws, including the petitioners. The petition before the High Court was preferred by only two of the accused persons, who are the massi of the husband of the Respondent and her daughter (second Petitioner).

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioners did not reside with the Respondent wife in her matrimonial home. The Bench was of the view that the allegations against the petitioners, even when taken at the highest, pertain to certain comments made by the petitioners or interference in the married life of the Respondent wife. “However, mere taunts, casual references, vague assertions or general family friction that occur in the ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to fall within the definition of “cruelty” as embodied under Section 498A of the IPC. The allegations, even when construed liberally and accepted at face value only reveal that the petitioners were privy to the matrimonial life of Respondent No. 3 and also interfered in her married life, the same however, does not constitute cruelty as per Section 498A of the IPC which as noted above is defined as any wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to life or limb (whether mental or physical) or harassment on account of dowry demand. The allegations that fall short of the statutory threshold cannot attract liability under Section 498A of the IPC”, it asserted.

The Bench also noted that the general allegations may suffice for the purpose of investigation being commenced but the same was not sufficient for the continuance of consequent proceedings qua the petitioners. “As is evident from the record, nothing substantial has been found in the investigation or evidenced in the chargesheet so as to allow the continuance of the proceedings arising out of the FIR against the petitioners”, it added.

It was also noticed that the petition seeking quashing of FIR was filed way back in the year 2022 and has been pending consideration since then. The Bench thus quashed the consequential proceedings arising out of the present FIR against the petitioner.

Cause Title: A v. State Through Commissioner of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9642)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Biraja Mahapatra, Nalin Hingorani, Raunak Jain

Respondent: ASC Rupali Bandopadhya, Advocates Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta, SI Dipika

Click here to read/download Order