{"id":337083,"date":"2024-12-11T16:00:19","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T10:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=337083"},"modified":"2024-12-13T15:29:39","modified_gmt":"2024-12-13T09:59:39","slug":"supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Telangana High Court, wherein the Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons under Section 498A<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’) and Section 3<\/a> and 4<\/a> of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/a> (‘Dowry Act’), the division bench of BV Nagarathna*<\/span> and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, and quashing the FIR, opined that the impugned FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court held that the High Court erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the accused persons.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In this case, the marriage between the husband and wife was solemnized in 2015, according to Hindu rites and rituals. The wife’s family filed a complaint against the husband’s family under Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act (demanding and accepting dowry).<\/p>\n

Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings pending against them, the accused persons approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. By the impugned order, the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings and directed the Investigation Officer to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 41-A<\/a> of CrPC<\/a> and also the guidelines issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span> (2014) 8 SCC 273<\/a>. Aggrieved, the accused persons filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/span> Whether FIR lodged against the accused persons should be quashed?<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court took note of State of Haryana<\/span> v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335<\/a>, wherein the parameters under which the powers under Section 482<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> could be exercised were formulated.<\/p>\n

The Court further took note of Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act and discussed the Sections and punishments under them in detail.<\/p>\n

After perusing the FIR, the Court noted that the allegations made by the wife are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband harassed her and that in-laws instigated him to do so, the wife has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the wife left the matrimonial home in 2021, prompting the husband to file a police complaint. When the police traced her, she addressed a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, requesting the closure of the husband’s complaint. In her letter, she admitted that she had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel with her husband, who got triggered by her continuous communication with a man over the phone for the past ten days. She further acknowledged that her husband had been taking good care of her and expressed her intention not to engage in such behavior in the future. Despite this, the wife left the matrimonial home again later in 2021, leaving the husband and their minor children behind. Losing hope in the marriage, the husband issued a legal notice to the wife seeking divorce by mutual consent. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by the husband, she lodged the present FIR.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court opined that the FIR filed by the wife is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with the husband and his family members.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the allegations made by the wife in the FIR were motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the Court said that the in-laws have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. There were no substantial and specific allegations made against them. Further, they never resided with the couple and their children. Hence, the Court concluded that the husband’s family cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.<\/p>\n

The Court said that “a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud”<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Noting that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord, the Court highlighted that such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n

Further, the Bench suggested that the Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.<\/p>\n

In light of the facts presented, the Court concluded that the allegations made by the wife against the husband and his family are “too far-fetched” and not believable.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that the “inclusion of Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, leads to the misuse of legal processes and encourages the use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and\/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that it is not suggesting that any woman who has suffered cruelty, as defined under Section 498A<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, should remain silent or refrain from making a complaint or initiating criminal proceedings. However, the Court emphasized that false cases, such as the present one where a complaint under Section 498A is lodged by the wife in retaliation for the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage, should be discouraged. The Court reminded that the purpose of inserting Section 498A into the IPC was primarily to protect women who face cruelty in their matrimonial homes, particularly when it stems from unlawful demands for property or valuable security in the form of dowry.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that the impugned FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members. Hence, the present case falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal (supra). Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the accused persons.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the husband and his family members.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Dara Lakshmi Narayana<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
State of Telangana<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span>
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Jain, Adv. Ms. Nayan Saini, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Goyal, Adv. Ms. Honey Verma, Adv. Mr. Rahul Mohod, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Gyan, Adv. Dr. Varnit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S Uday Bhanu, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"BV
BV Nagarathna, J.<\/span><\/img><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Nongmeikapam
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.<\/span><\/img><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and\/or her family.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":337084,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[76281,13271,60582,76280,76282,76279],"class_list":["post-337083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-false-dowry-harassment-charges","tag-matrimonial-disputes","tag-misuse-of-section-498a-ipc","tag-personal-vendetta-in-matrimonial-disputes","tag-section-498a-ipc-misuse","tag-supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court quashes false dowry case; Highlights misuse of Section 498A IPC for personal vendetta<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-12-11T10:30:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-12-13T09:59:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; Highlights misuse of Section 498A IPC for personal vendetta\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-12-11T10:30:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-12-13T09:59:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Misuse of Section 498A IPC\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; Highlights misuse of Section 498A IPC for personal vendetta","description":"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta","og_description":"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-12-11T10:30:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-12-13T09:59:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","name":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; Highlights misuse of Section 498A IPC for personal vendetta","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp","datePublished":"2024-12-11T10:30:19+00:00","dateModified":"2024-12-13T09:59:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Supreme Court quashed a false dowry harassment case, emphasizing the growing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes as a tool for personal vendetta by wives against their husbands and families.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Misuse of Section 498A IPC"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":261795,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/15\/section-498a-ipc-husbands-relatives-cannot-be-forced-to-undergo-trial-in-absence-of-specific-allegations-of-dowry-demand\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":0},"title":"Section 498A IPC| Husband\u2019s relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in absence of specific allegations of dowry demand","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-83.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-83.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-83.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-83.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-83.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281735,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/16\/bombay-high-court-quashes-dowry-fir-false-implication-of-husband-and-relatives-applicant-is-judicial-officer-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":1},"title":"Loss of character or bruised reputation cannot be restored even by judicial reprieve; Bombay High Court quashes FIR filed under S. 498 A IPC","author":"Editor","date":"January 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Bombay-High-Court-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6454,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/07\/12\/misuse-of-anti-dowry-laws-condemned\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":2},"title":"Misuse of anti-dowry laws condemned","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 12, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Taking into account, the high rate of charge-sheeting under Section 498A of IPC, which is 93.6%, including the mothers and sisters of the husband, whereas the convictions made under this section is only 15%, the Court criticised the misuse of the laws and provisions made under the Penal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297899,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/28\/misuse-section-498a-ipc-increasing-implicating-relatives-husband-jharkhand-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":3},"title":"Misuse of Section 498-A, IPC by implicating husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes; Jharkhand High Court quashes criminal complaint","author":"Ridhi","date":"July 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the object of Section 498-A of IPC to punish cruelty by husband and his relatives.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jharkhand high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/jharkhand-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290554,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/26\/woman-unnatural-death-in-matrimonial-home-not-sufficient-to-convict-husband-in-laws-under-section-498a-ipc-dowry-death-cruetly-soon-before-death-supreme-court-uttaranchal-high-court-legal-research-new\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":4},"title":"Woman’s unnatural death in matrimonial home, within 7 years of marriage, not sufficient to convict husband\/in-laws for dowry death: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme court observed that for woman's death to be considered dowry death under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC, the cruelty or harassment has to be soon before the death.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court on dowry death","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-on-dowry-death.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-on-dowry-death.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-on-dowry-death.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/supreme-court-on-dowry-death.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289251,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/12\/cruelty-against-married-woman-latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-498a-in-2022\/","url_meta":{"origin":337083,"position":5},"title":"Safeguarding Dignity or Misuse? Latest Supreme Court Judgments discussing Section 498-A IPC","author":"Ridhi","date":"April 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court continues to shape the interpretation and application of Section 498-A IPC, balancing the need to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment with concerns over potential misuse. Recent rulings provide significant clarity on the scope and limitations of this provision, reaffirming its importance while addressing safeguards to prevent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law made Easy"","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Supreme Court Judgment on 498-A","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=337083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337083\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/337084"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=337083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=337083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=337083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}