Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes fake 498A case, calling allegations vague, frivolous, and actuated by vengeance. The court terms it a gross misuse of law against the husband’s family.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
HARYANA: In a landmark ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 18 August 2025 quashed the FIR No. 47 dated 23.04.2022 and the chargesheet filed under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC against the husband’s immediate family members, holding that the proceedings were nothing but a misuse of criminal law.
The case was heard by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in the matter titled Rahul Shukla and Ors. vs UT Chandigarh and Anr..
Background of the Case
The complaint was lodged by Ravinder Singh, father of the complainant-wife, against her husband, Rahul Shukla, his parents, and sisters-in-law.
The daughter, Neha Chalana, had married Rahul Shukla in April 2018 through a matrimonial website. Soon after marriage, the couple moved abroad, she worked in Doha (Qatar) and later joined Rahul in Sydney, Australia.
Marital disputes arose overseas, leading Neha to file a domestic violence complaint in Australia. Their marriage was eventually dissolved by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 12.09.2019. Neha remarried in November 2020, moving on with her life.
Despite this, her father filed a fresh complaint in India in 2022, leading to the registration of the FIR.
Court’s Findings
The High Court observed that:
- No incident of cruelty or dowry harassment occurred in India. All disputes arose in Australia after the marriage.
- No evidence existed to show that Rahul’s mother or sisters ever interfered in the couple’s relationship or visited their matrimonial home.
- The allegations in the FIR against the husband’s family were “vague, frivolous and without any basis.”
- The Court noted that the FIR appeared to be the result of vengeance, as the complainant’s daughter had matrimonial disputes with Rahul abroad.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects BJP Leader Sunil Soren’s Bail in Rape Case: “Must Face Arrest”
The order states,
“Contents of FIR indicate that allegations against these petitioners No.2 to 4 are vague and without any basis. On the basis of frivolous and bald allegations, present FIR has been registered against them. In-fact, registration of aforesaid FIR is result of vengeance… Proceedings thereon is gross misuse of the process of law.”
Final Decision:
- The Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and all subsequent proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 (the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law).
- However, relief was not extended to Rahul Shukla (husband) because he had allegedly misused the concession of anticipatory bail by leaving India without the court’s permission.
Thus, the petition was partly allowed.
Appearance:
For petitioners: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate
For UT, Chandigarh: Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT, Chandigarh with Mr. Navjit Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.2: Mr. Amjad Khan and Mr. Anureet S. Sidhu, Advocates for respondent No.2.
Case Title:
RAHUL SHUKLA AND ORS Vs. UT CHANDIGARH AND ANR
for respondent No.2
Read Attachment:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Marital Rape