Section 498A IPC Is Being Misused; But Genuine Cases Of Harassment Exist Too: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that although Section 498A IPC is misused, it cannot be denied that genuine cases of harassment don’t exist.

The Court was considering a Petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The single-bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed,"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."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sanchar Anand while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant.

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.

It was 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 ₹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.

It was 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.

It was alleged that even though the father of Respondent No.2 called the panchayat multiple times, however, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home and her 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. 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.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the present FIR and other complaints were preferred by the complainant against the Petitioner and his family members to hide her adulterous conduct. He submitted that the parties had separated after the Petitioner found the photos of the complainant with another male person. He submitted that the parties had decided to take a mutual divorce before a biradri panchayat and thereafter, a divorce petition was preferred jointly by the parties. He submitted that in the said petition, it was categorically pleaded that the complainant has received back all her stridhan and there is no mention of any cruelty on account of demand of dowry in the joint petition.

He submitted that the complainant took back her consent on the premise that the Petitioner had induced her to sign the petition for seeking divorce by stating that the same was to merely placate his parents, however, the excuse is implausible. He submitted that the divorce has now been granted ex-parte on the ground of cruelty. He submitted that the allegations in the FIR are vague and general in nature, and continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He submitted that no time, date or place in relation of the allegations has been mentioned in the FIR. He further submitted that no specific entrustment of dowry articles has been shown by the complainant and the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is thus not made out against the petitioner. He submitted that while the complainant had made allegations against the petitioner and his family members, however, only the Petitioner was charge sheeted in the present case.

On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that Respondent No.2 had withdrawn her consent for divorce by mutual consent because the Petitioner had duped her into signing the joint petition on the false pretext that the same was meant to only placate his parents. He submitted that the joint Petition cannot be read against Respondent No.2. He further submitted that merely because the parties have been granted divorce, the same has no effect on the merits of the present FIR. He submitted that Respondent No.2 has made categorical allegations against the petitioner and there is no cause for quashing of the present FIR.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset cited Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal in which certain categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice was illustrated.

"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 High 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 Court observed.

Noting that the present FIR was filed more than years after the petitioner had filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Court cited Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana: 2024 where the complainant had lodged the FIR nearly two years after the accused appellant (the husband) filing the divorce petition, it was observed that such unexplained delay pointed that the FIR was filed only to harass the accused appellant and his family members and pointed out that in the present case as well, no explanation has been provided as to why she had remained silent and not initiated any action against the petitioner for over three years after being ousted from her matrimonial home.

"A bare perusal of the FIR shows that similar allegations have been made in a sweeping manner against the petitioner as well as his family members. Despite the same, it is pertinent to note that the charge-sheet in the present case has only been filed against the petitioner and not his family members, that is, his father, mother and brother, who have been kept under column 12," the Court observed.

Noting that no evidence was found against the family members of the Petitioner either, the Court found merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the allegations appear to be an afterthought and counterblast to the divorce petition.

It stressed that although Section 498A IPC is misused, it cannot be denied that genuine cases of harassment don’t exist.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ajay vs. State & Anr. (2025:DHC:746)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Sanchar Anand

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant, Advocate Anurag Sharma

Click here to read/ download Judgement