CrPC Section 482 Invoked: Delhi HC Quashes 498A FIR, Citing Delay and Vague Dowry Allegations


Case: Ajay v. State

Citation: 2025 DHC 746

Facts:

  • The petitioner, Ajay, sought to quash FIR No. 262/2017 filed by his wife (Respondent No. 2) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged dowry harassment.
  • The FIR was registered in 2017, but the parties had been living separately since 2014.
  • The wife alleged that after their marriage in 2011, she was harassed for dowry. She claimed her husband and his family made demands for a Honda City car and criticized her father's financial status. She also alleged mental and physical torture, leading to a miscarriage, and that her stridhan was not returned.
  • Ajay claimed false implication due to his wife's alleged adulterous conduct and a prior agreement for mutual divorce. He also cited the vagueness of the allegations. An earlier joint divorce petition mentioned the return of stridhan and made no mention of dowry harassment. He stated that a divorce was eventually granted ex-parte on the grounds of cruelty.
  • The wife claimed she withdrew consent from the mutual divorce petition because of the husband's deception.

Issue:

  • Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the FIR.

Reasoning:

  • The court noted a significant delay of over three years in filing the FIR after the wife was allegedly ousted from her matrimonial home. The court cited Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, noting that unexplained delays can indicate malicious intent to harass.
  • The allegations in the FIR were vague and general, lacking specific details.
  • The chargesheet was filed only against the husband, while other family members named in the FIR were not.
  • A previous complaint by the wife's father contradicted the dowry allegations.
  • The husband obtained an ex-parte divorce decree based on the wife's cruelty, which she did not challenge.
  • The court acknowledged the increasing misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes.

Decision:

  • The High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, concluding that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

Excerpts:

  • "While this Court needs to exercise restraint in stifling prosecution, however, the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if it is found that the continuance of criminal proceedings would be a clear abuse of process of law".
  • "In the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, 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".
  • "On the other hand, the complaint seems to suggest that the petitioner refused to take dowry at the time of marriage and the rancour was between the petitioner’s family and Respondent No.2".
  • "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".
  • "If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court".
  • "The Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends".

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more