2024 INSC 953

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16239 of 2024)

DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERS … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the

High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.1479

of 2022 refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.82 of

2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
GEETA JOSHI
Date: 2024.12.10
16:48:51 IST
Reason:

Page 1 of 26
Rachakonda against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 herein (collectively

referred as “appellants”) under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (“IPC”, for short) and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 (“Dowry Act”, for short), the appellants have

preferred this appeal.

3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the marriage of

appellant No.1 husband and respondent No.2 wife was solemnised

on 08.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Chennakesava

Swamy Temple, Marakapuram, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos.2

and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of

respondent No.2 and appellant Nos.4 to 6 are sisters-in-law of

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the

appellant Nos.1 to 6 and accused No.7 who is her brother-in-law

which was registered as FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 for

the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act registered with Neredmet Police

Station, Rachakonda. As per the said FIR, it was alleged that at the

Page 2 of 26
time of her marriage, the father of respondent No.2 gave net cash

of Rs.10 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, and other household articles as

dowry and also spent Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After

the marriage, the couple started residing at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu

where appellant No.1 was working in Southern Railways. Out of

their wedlock, respondent No.2 and appellant No.1 have 2 minor

children. The first child was born in the year 2016 and the second

child was born in the year 2017. After marriage, appellant No.1

started harassing her both physically and mentally for want of

additional dowry. Appellant No.1 also used to abuse respondent

No.1 in filthy language and used to suspect her character. He also

used to come home inebriated and harassed her by having an

illegal affair with one Mounika. In so far as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are

concerned, respondent No.2 alleged that they used to instigate

appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry her.

4. Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings pending

against them, the appellants and accused No.7 approached the

Page 3 of 26
High Court by filing Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CrPC”)

seeking quashing of the FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022

registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda.

5. By the impugned order dated 16.02.2024, the High Court

refused to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the

appellants and accused No.7 in FIR No.82 of 2022 dated

01.02.2022 and disposed of the Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022

directing the Investigation Officer to follow the mandatory

procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of CrPC and also the

guidelines issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of

Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. The High Court further granted

protection by directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest to

appellants until the chargesheet is filed. The High Court noted that

there are matrimonial disputes between appellant No.1 and

respondent No.2 and that in matrimonial disputes, custodial

interrogation of the accused is not required. Being aggrieved by the

Page 4 of 26
High Court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings arising out

of FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022, the appellants herein have

preferred the instant appeal.

6. Subsequent to the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, the

police have filed a chargesheet dated 03.06.2022 before the Court

of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad vide C.C.

No.1544 of 2022 against the appellant Nos.1 to 6 under Section

498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. However,

the charges were dropped against accused No.7 (respondent No.2’s

brother-in-law). The criminal case against the appellants herein is

pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the respondent-State and perused FIR No.82 of 2022

dated 01.02.2022. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent

No.2 despite service of notice.

Page 5 of 26
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

appellants never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 in fact used to leave the matrimonial house

uninformed. In fact, on one such occasion when she left the

matrimonial house on 03.10.2021, appellant No.1 made a police

complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police found her whereabouts,

she was allegedly living with someone. Respondent No.2 after being

counselled, returned to her matrimonial house. It was further

submitted that respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated

11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur

Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant

No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house

after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with

whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days

continuously. She also stated that she would not repeat such acts

in future. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted

that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving

appellant No.1 and children behind. It was submitted that having

Page 6 of 26
no other option, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice dated

13.12.2021 to respondent No.2 seeking divorce by mutual consent.

Therefore, it was argued that only as a counterblast, the present

FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2. on 01.02.2022. Insofar

as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, learned counsel for the

appellants submitted that no specific allegation is made against

them in the FIR. It was further submitted that appellant Nos.2 to 6

did not live in the matrimonial house of the couple and have been

unnecessarily dragged into this case. Therefore, it was submitted

that the present case is a fit case for quashing the FIR and

accordingly prayed that this Court may set-aside the impugned

order dated 16.02.2022 and quash the criminal proceedings

pending against the appellants herein arising out of FIR No. 82 of

2022 dated 01.02.2022.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State

submitted that on a perusal of the FIR, it would reveal that a prima

facie case has been made out against the appellants. It was

Page 7 of 26
submitted that, as per the FIR, respondent No.2 was harassed both

physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and that

appellant No.1 used to come home in a drunken state and used to

have an illicit affair with one Mounika. Learned counsel for the

respondent-State submitted that the father of respondent No.2 was

examined as LW3 who stated in the examination that at the time

of marriage, he gave Rs.10 lakhs and 10 tolas of gold as dowry. It

was further submitted that after the marriage, appellant No.1 used

to harass and abuse respondent No.2 and appellant Nos.2 to 6 used

to provoke and instigate appellant No.1. Hence, learned counsel for

the respondent-State argued that the High Court, vide impugned

order, was justified in declining to quash the criminal proceedings

pending against the appellants herein arising out of FIR No.82 of

2022 dated 01.02.2022 and prayed for the dismissal of the present

appeal as well.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and having perused the material on record, the only question that

Page 8 of 26
arises for our consideration is whether FIR No.82 of 2022, dated

01.02.2022, lodged against the appellants herein should be

quashed.

11. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335 (“Bhajan Lal”), this Court formulated the parameters under

which the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC could be

exercised. While it is not necessary to revisit all the parameters, a

few that are relevant to the present case may be set out as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face

Page 9 of 26
 value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.

x x x

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with

mala fide and/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.”

12. In the instant case, the allegations in the FIR are under

Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.

13. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the

husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the

wife. The said provision reads as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”

means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause

Page 10 of 26
 grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.”

14. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act talk about the

penalty for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.

“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—

(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act,

gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry,
he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than five years, and with fine
which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees
or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever
is more.

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and

special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five
years.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in

relation to,—

(a) presents which are given at the time of a

marriage to the bride without any demand
having been made in that behalf:

Page 11 of 26
 Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made
under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a

marriage to the bridegroom without any demand
having been made in that behalf:

Provided that such presents are entered in a list

maintained in accordance with the rules made under
this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made

by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the
bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the
value thereof is not excessive having regard to the
financial status of the person by whom, or on whose
behalf, such presents are given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person

demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case
may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and

special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose
a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months.”

15. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when

a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may

Page 12 of 26
result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and

a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines

“cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of

the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a)

of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that “cruelty”

means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to

drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a)

of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty

means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave

injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)

of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section

498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment

of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property

or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.

Page 13 of 26
16. Further, Section 3 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for

giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in

giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a

punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a fine

of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry,

whichever is greater. Section 4 of the Dowry Act talks of penalty for

demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry

directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or

guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months,

but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend

to ten thousand rupees.

17. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and

circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High

Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal

proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022

Page 14 of 26
dated 01.02.2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Act.

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by

respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that

appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6

instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 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.

19. Further, the record reveals that respondent No.2 on

03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house leading appellant No.1 to

file a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police officials

traced her, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021

to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division

requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1. In the

said letter, respondent No.2 admitted that she left her matrimonial

Page 15 of 26
house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 as she was talking to a

person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days

continuously. She further admitted that appellant No.1 was taking

good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such

actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, respondent No.2 once

again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and also

her minor children.

20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal

notice to respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on

13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued

by appellant No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of

2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station,

Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Act.

21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and

context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the

matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant

Page 16 of 26
No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their

marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring

to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she

again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a

legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came

to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are

of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a

genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to

settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members.

22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 State contended that a

prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing

respondent No.2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we

observe that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the FIR

seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a

legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the

appellants herein are vague and omnibus.

Page 17 of 26
23. Respondent No.2 has not contested the present case either

before the High Court or this Court. Furthermore, it is noteworthy

that respondent No. 2 has not only deserted appellant No. 1 but

has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the

care and custody of appellant No.1. The counsel for the appellants

has specifically submitted that respondent No.2 has shown no

inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children.

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that

they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been

dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A

perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific

allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than

stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding

more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with

the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their

children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal,

Page 18 of 26
Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru

and Guntur respectively.

25. 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. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial

experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the

members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out

of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping

accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised

allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 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. In the present case,

appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of

appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not

resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent

Page 19 of 26
No.2 herein. Hence, they 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.

26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e.

the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu

where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in

the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the

second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot

be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the

said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the

second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by

the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a letter dated

11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur

Sub Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she

had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own

accord owing to a quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one

Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over

Page 20 of 26
telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she

would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of

facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against

the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable.

27. We find that the High Court noted that there were also

allegations against respondent No.2 and matrimonial disputes are

pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the

conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not

necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants

directing the Investigation Officer not to arrest the appellants till

the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet.

Albeit the said findings and observations, the High Court ultimately

refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC 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

Page 21 of 26
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 of the IPC as a tool for unleashing

personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.

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. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke

Section 498A of the IPC 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.

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has

suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under

Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself

Page 22 of 26
from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding.

That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we

should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a

counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by

the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a

complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In

fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the

protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the

matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any

property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However,

sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

30. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.

Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 observed as follows:

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes

in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought about

Page 23 of 26
 rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in
a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different courts.”

31. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand

(2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful

and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take

pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with

matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s

close relatives who had been living in different cities and never

visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided

would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the

complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and

circumspection.

32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82

of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives

Page 24 of 26
to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and

his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the

present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative

parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court,

in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to

it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of

the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against

the appellants.

33. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned

order of the High Court dated 16.02.2022 in Criminal Petition

No.1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC. The Criminal

Petition No.1479 of 2022 under Section 482 of CrPC shall

accordingly stand allowed. FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022

registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under

Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act

against appellant Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 03.06.2022 filed

in the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad

Page 25 of 26
and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri against

the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.
[B.V. NAGARATHNA]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 10, 2024.

Page 26 of 26