Supreme Court: In special leave petition (SLP) arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties, where petitioner-husband sought to initiate criminal proceedings against his wife and her family members on the ground that their own statements disclosed the offence of “giving dowry” under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Prohibition Act), thereby raising an important question as to whether such statements could form the sole basis for prosecuting the alleged “givers” of dowry, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kumar* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., dismissed the SLP, holding that a wife cannot be prosecuted for giving dowry solely on the basis of such statements. The Court explained that where the only material relied upon to allege the offence of “giving dowry” under Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act is the complaint or statements made by the wife and her family members, they, being the “persons aggrieved”, would be fully covered by the shield of immunity raised under Section 7(3) and would not be liable to be prosecuted on the strength thereof.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter arose out of matrimonial discord between the petitioner-husband and his wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 24 November 2007 at Raipur, and they have three children, who are stated to be residing with the father. The wife left the matrimonial home on 25 December 2021 and returned to her parental house, thereafter, seeking divorce, while the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights.
Subsequently, FIR was registered at Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, on the complaint of the wife against the husband and his family members under Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act. In her statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the wife alleged that dowry had been discussed and paid prior to the marriage, and similar statements were made by her family members. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the husband and his parents.
The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint dated 25 December 2023 seeking registration of a separate FIR against his wife and her family members. His contention was that their own statements admitting that dowry had been given constituted an offence under Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act, which penalises both giving and taking of dowry. However, no independent evidence was furnished by him apart from these statements.
However, the petitioner’s complaint did not result in registration of an FIR. He then filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which was dismissed on 19 January 2024, holding that accepting such a plea would amount to directing reinvestigation in the already registered FIR, which was beyond his powers.
A review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 15 February 2024 on the ground that the CrPC does not provide for review of criminal orders. Thereafter, a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC was filed before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 23 August 2024, affirming that no cognizable offence was made out.
The petitioner then approached the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 528, Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), but the petition was dismissed on 30 July 2025, holding that directing registration of a separate FIR would effectively amount to reinvestigation in the earlier FIR. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP.
Issue for Determination
Whether statements made by the wife and her family members admitting the giving of dowry could form the basis for prosecuting them under Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act for the offence of “giving dowry”?
Legal Framework
The Dowry Prohibition Act was enacted to curb the social evil of dowry. Section 3 provides punishment for giving or taking dowry, with enhanced penalties introduced through amendments in 1984 and 1986. Section 7(3), inserted by Act 43 of 1986, provides that a statement made by the person aggrieved shall not subject such person to prosecution under the Act. This provision was introduced following recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which recognised that dowry givers are often victims compelled by social circumstances and should not be equated with offenders.
Analysis
The Court observed that the entire case of the petitioner rested solely on the complaint and statements of the wife and her family members recorded under Section 161 CrPC. No independent evidence was produced to establish the alleged giving of dowry.
The Court emphasised that Section 7(3) creates a statutory bar that statements made by the aggrieved persons cannot be used to prosecute them for giving dowry. Thus, such statements cannot be the foundation for initiating criminal proceedings against them.
The Court held that where the only material relied upon to allege the offence of “giving dowry” under Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act is the complaint or statements made by the wife and her family members, they, being “persons aggrieved,” are protected under Section 7(3) and cannot be prosecuted on that basis.
The Court also examined the decision in Neera Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2007 SCC OnLine Del 294 and held that ii had no precedential value as it was rendered in ignorance of Section 7(3) and contained observations that were unnecessary and obiter in nature.
The Court further clarified that while a second FIR is permissible in certain circumstances, such as when it presents a rival version or is based on independent evidence [Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292], but such a course was not justified in the present case, where the only material relied upon was the statements of the alleged victims themselves.
The Court further cited State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358, where the Court culled out five principles on the issue of registration of a second FIR:
-
“When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
-
When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
-
When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
-
When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
-
Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different.”
Decision
The Court held that where the only material relied upon to allege the offence of giving dowry consists of statements made by the wife and her family members, they are protected under Section 7(3), Dowry Prohibition Act and cannot be prosecuted on that basis. It was further held that in the absence of independent evidence, no FIR could be directed to be registered against them.
The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s grievance and upheld the orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court. Accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.
Also Watch: Dowry Deaths & the Law: What Legal Remedies Exist?
[Rahul Gupta v. Station House Officer, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13755 of 2025, decided on 16-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Amicus Curiae
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
