Delhi High Court: In a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 13.05.2022 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the petitioners, Amit Mahajan, J., quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings as the allegations against them were vague, general, and lacked material particulars, the petitioner’s non-residence in the matrimonial home and absence of specific acts of cruelty or misappropriation ruled out any prima facie case; and continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process.
The genesis of the dispute lies in the marital discord between the complainant-wife (respondent 3) and her husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 09-11-2019. The complainant alleged that before the wedding, her husband’s family had insisted that the marriage be performed lavishly, resulting in an expenditure of about ₹30 lakhs by her parents. During the engagement ceremony, the groom’s family allegedly demanded a car as dowry. After the wedding, the sagan money was purportedly taken by her in-laws for the car’s down payment.
The complainant further alleged that her husband misrepresented his financial condition, claiming a thriving garment business with earnings of ₹3—4 lakhs per month, which turned out to be false. In December 2019, her husband allegedly demanded ₹5 lakhs from her parents to support his business; her father arranged ₹2 lakhs which were handed over to the husband. Subsequently, in March 2020, during a dinner hosted by one of her husband’s friends, Puneet Arora allegedly assaulted and humiliated her in front of others and later abandoned her on the road while returning home. The complainant also accused her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law of subjecting her to persistent harassment, including physical abuse and denial of medical care during her pregnancy.
The allegations against the petitioners who were not part of the matrimonial household was that the aunt of the husband (petitioner 1), residing in Suraj Mal Vihar about 10 minutes away, frequently interfered in the complainant’s marital life and instigated her in-laws. It was alleged that both petitioners habitually meddled in the domestic affairs of the complainant, criticized her parenting, appearance, and conduct, and often made remarks intended to demean her. The complainant further alleged that Petitioner 1 threatened that if she did not behave, her daughter (Petitioner 2) would be married to the complainant’s husband. The petitioners allegedly supported the husband’s family during quarrels and humiliated the complainant’s parents, including during a neighbourhood altercation on 14-08-2021.
In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, the complainant claimed that her stridhan, gifts, and jewellery received during the marriage and childbirth were in the possession of her husband, in-laws, and both petitioners. On this basis, the police registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC against all accused, including the petitioners.
The Court examined the contours of the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that while these powers are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of legal process. Placing reliance on State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty (2022) 16 SCC 703 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Court reiterated that complaints may be quashed where:
(1) even accepting the allegations at face value, no prima facie offence is made out; or
(2) the proceedings are maliciously instituted or inherently improbable.
The Court also noted that legitimate prosecutions should not be stifled merely because of familial friction. Relying on Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Court noted the judiciary’s consistent caution against the misuse of Section 498A IPC through over-implication of distant relatives without specific evidence of active participation in cruelty.
The Court proceeded to analyze the statutory framework of Section 498A IPC, which penalizes cruelty by the husband or his relatives, defining “cruelty” as:
(a) wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health; or
(b) harassment intended to coerce her or her family to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.
Placing further reliance on Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473, it was observed that while the term “relative” is not defined in the IPC, its ordinary meaning encompasses persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, such as parents, siblings, children, and their spouses but that mere remote connection does not suffice to infer criminal liability. The Court also highlighted that general and omnibus allegation against such relatives, particularly those not residing with the complainant, do not constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A unless supported by clear and specific material.
The Court also cited Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar (supra), where the Supreme Court quashed prosecutions of distant relatives based on sweeping and exaggerated allegations, warning that over-implication of family members undermines the legislative intent of Section 498A, which was introduced to combat genuine instances of dowry-related cruelty.
Upon examining the complaint and statements on record, the Court found that the petitioners did not reside with the complainant during her matrimonial life. The only allegations against them related to occasional interference, taunts, and disparaging comments. Even if taken at their highest value, these allegations amounted to mere family discord or interference, not “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. The Court observed that normal wear and tear of domestic relationships, trivial irritations, and occasional friction cannot attract criminal culpability.
Regarding the offence under Section 406 IPC, the Court found that the complainant’s assertion that her stridhan was in the possession of all accused, including the petitioners, was vague and unsupported by any specific act of entrustment or misappropriation. The general and sweeping allegation that her jewellery and gifts were with them was insufficient to sustain prosecution. The chargesheet also did not reveal any substantive material implicating the petitioners.
Thus, the Court concluded that no grave suspicion existed to justify the framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A or 406 IPC. The continuation of proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of process. Since the petition had been pending since 2022 and the trial was still at the stage of charge consideration, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings insofar as they pertained to the petitioners.
However, the Court left open the possibility for the Trial Court to take appropriate steps in the future if any substantive evidence emerges warranting proceedings against the petitioners in accordance with law.
[Shashi Arora v. State, W.P.(CRL) 2711/2022, decided on 03-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Mr. Nalin Hingorani and Mr. Raunak Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Bandopadhya, ASC for the State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates. SI Dipika, PS Adarsh Nagar
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
