{"id":384058,"date":"2026-05-14T13:00:44","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T07:30:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=384058"},"modified":"2026-05-14T12:59:42","modified_gmt":"2026-05-14T07:29:42","slug":"s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Himachal Pradesh High Court:<\/span> While deciding whether an first information report (FIR) filed by the wife against her husband and in-laws (collectively &#8220;petitioners&#8221;) under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498-A<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561742\" target=\"_blank\">406<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561652\" target=\"_blank\">34<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) should be quashed, particularly when the parties had already dissolved their marriage by mutual consent, a Single Judge Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sandeep Sharma<\/span>, J., held that where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the Court is justified in quashing such proceedings. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498-A<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">IPC<\/a> FIR after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand was made out against the petitioners and acquitted them.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Also Read:<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/19\/section-498a-fir-against-husband-family-quashed-kar-hc\/\" target=\"_blank\">Kar HC: Section 498-A IPC FIR Against husband, family quashed<\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Background<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11 October 2021 as per Hindu rites and customs. The wife alleged that on 27 February 2022, her husband and her in-laws came to her parental house but did not take her back with them and assured that she could return to her matrimonial house after residing with her parents for some time. When no one came to take her back, she reached her matrimonial home which was found locked. She also alleged that her in-laws had changed their house and her husband was residing with his maternal uncle in Shimla. She stated that her belongings were in possession of her in-laws, and based on all this, an FIR was registered.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">After completion of investigation, the police presented a challan but during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties approached the Family Court and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001543735\" target=\"_blank\">13-B<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726956\" target=\"_blank\">Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a> (HMA). The husband and his family thereafter approached the High Court and filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The petitioners contended that at the time of passing of decree of dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent, the wife had categorically stated before the Family Court that the parties had amicably settled their dispute and nothing remained to be given or taken <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter se<\/span> them. It was further argued that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that no case under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498-A<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">IPC<\/a> was made out against the petitioners, and no complaint was ever made that dowry was demanded by the petitioners, rather the case was that the wife was duped and cheated.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the other hand, the wife contended that the dissolution of marriage would have no bearing upon the criminal case. It was submitted that the petitioners had also filed an application for discharge before the competent court on the same grounds, but the prayer was rejected, and since they did not challenge the order refusing to discharge them, the present petition was not maintainable. It was further submitted that any statement made by the wife in the divorce proceedings to the effect that nothing remains to be given or taken between the parties, might not be sufficient to discharge the petitioners.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Also Read:<\/span> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\" target=\"_blank\">Girlfriend not &#8216;relative&#8217; under S. 498-A RPC: J&amp;K HC<\/a><\/p>\n<h3>Analysis<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of Karnataka<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">L. Muniswamy<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/LA8566HS\" target=\"_blank\">(1977) 2 SCC 699<\/a>, wherein it was observed that under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519791\" target=\"_blank\">482<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) [now Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804270\" target=\"_blank\">528<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804327\" target=\"_blank\">Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS)], the High Court is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also referred to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Prashant Bharti<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/qa31b068\" target=\"_blank\">(2013) 9 SCC 293<\/a>, where it was reiterated that the High Court has inherent powers under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519791\" target=\"_blank\">482<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> (now Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804270\" target=\"_blank\">528<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804327\" target=\"_blank\">BNSS<\/a>), to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. It was further observed that:<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519791\" target=\"_blank\">482<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a>, the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his\/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution\/complainant.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court emphasised that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court while exercising its inherent power can proceed to quash the proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The Court relied on <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Anand Kumar Mohatta<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/6se5D7Er\" target=\"_blank\">(2019) 11 SCC 706<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of inherent power of the High Court, observed that:<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;&#8230; the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court opined that the High Court can exercise its power under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001519791\" target=\"_blank\">482<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726935\" target=\"_blank\">CrPC<\/a> (or Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804270\" target=\"_blank\">528<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-9001804327\" target=\"_blank\">BNSS<\/a>) to quash criminal proceedings, in cases, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted that the parties were unable to resolve their dispute despite there being intervention of elder members of their respective families and of their own volition they decided to get their marriage dissolved by way of mutual consent. The Court summoned the parties on 2 April 2026, and the wife stated that though she had no objection in quashing the FIR, but since her belongings, including her gold ornaments, were yet not returned, she wanted to pursue the criminal case. She alleged an outside Court settlement between the parties but could not adduce any documents in support of the same.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court read the FIR and observed that the wife&#8217;s allegations did not disclose any demand of dowry. The Court noted that the State filed the status report, wherein facts otherwise given in final report were reproduced, which if read in its entirety, did not suggest a case against the petitioners under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498-A<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">IPC<\/a>. The Court observed that the FIR did not suggest that the petitioners ever made any demand of dowry or at any point of time they coerced or harassed the wife for bringing less dowry, rather her case was that she was not taken back from her parental home. Regarding the matrimonial home, it was found that it was sold by the petitioners, but the Court observed that such sale cannot be construed to be an act of demanding dowry.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court opined that since the basic ingredients of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561850\" target=\"_blank\">498-A<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">IPC<\/a> were totally missing, coupled with the fact that parties had already settled their matter by getting their marriage dissolved, no fruitful purpose would be served in case the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the wife were allowed to sustain, and it would rather amount to putting the petitioners to ordeal of protracted trial, which otherwise, in all probabilities, was bound to fail.<\/p>\n<h3>Decision<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR along with all consequential proceedings pending before the trial court, and the petitioners were acquitted of all the charges framed against them.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Rahul Dadhwal<\/span> v. <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">State of H.P.<\/span>, Cr.MMO No.1083 of 2025, decided on 5-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Petitioners:<\/span> Yug Singhal, Advocate.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For the Respondents:<\/span> Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, Abhimanyu Rathour and Poonam Gehlot, Advocates.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Penal Code, 1860 &nbsp; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"penal code, 1860\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294601\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-768x511.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-440x293.jpg 440w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860.jpg 886w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-60x40.jpg 60w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court while exercising its inherent power can proceed to quash the proceedings.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67538,"featured_media":384067,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2570,13241,33559,2929,13031,73194,50352,6721,104246,13021,31299,77387],"class_list":["post-384058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Cruelty","tag-divorce-by-mutual-consent","tag-dowry-demand","tag-Himachal_Pradesh_High_Court","tag-inherent-powers","tag-justice-sandeep-sharma","tag-quashment-of-fir","tag-quashment-of-proceedings","tag-section-13-b-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-section-482-crpc","tag-section-498-a-ipc","tag-section-528-bnss"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand made out: HP HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.\" \/>\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\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.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=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"headline\":\"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1357,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Cruelty\",\"divorce by mutual consent\",\"Dowry Demand\",\"Himachal Pradesh High Court\",\"inherent powers\",\"Justice Sandeep Sharma\",\"quashment of FIR\",\"quashment of proceedings\",\"Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act 1955\",\"section 482 crpc\",\"Section 498-A IPC\",\"Section 528 BNSS\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/\",\"name\":\"S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand made out: HP HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"description\":\"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/14\\\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce\"}]},{\"@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\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\",\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sunaina\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sunaina\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand made out: HP HC | SCC Times","description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.","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\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce","og_description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sunaina","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sunaina","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/"},"author":{"name":"Sunaina","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"headline":"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce","datePublished":"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/"},"wordCount":1357,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp","keywords":["Cruelty","divorce by mutual consent","Dowry Demand","Himachal Pradesh High Court","inherent powers","Justice Sandeep Sharma","quashment of FIR","quashment of proceedings","Section 13-B Hindu Marriage Act 1955","section 482 crpc","Section 498-A IPC","Section 528 BNSS"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/","name":"S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce as no cruelty or dowry demand made out: HP HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-14T07:30:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: S. 498-A IPC case after mutual divorce holding that no cruelty or dowry demand was made out and that continuation would amount to abuse of process.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"S. 498-A case quashed after mutual divorce"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/14\/s-498-a-fir-quashed-after-mutual-divorce-as-no-cruelty-or-dowry-demand-made-out-hp-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wife Left at Parental Home Is Not Dowry Harassment: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes S. 498-A FIR After Mutual Divorce"}]},{"@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\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f","name":"Sunaina","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sunaina"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sunaina\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/S.-498-A-case-quashed-after-mutual-divorce.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384058","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\/67538"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=384058"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384058\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":384060,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384058\/revisions\/384060"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/384067"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=384058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=384058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=384058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}