The Delhi High Court cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC, observing a rising trend of falsely implicating husbands’ distant relatives in dowry harassment cases without evidence, which undermines the true purpose and sanctity of the law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the increasing trend of implicating distant relatives in dowry harassment cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) without sufficient evidence. Justice Amit Mahajan, while quashing a dowry harassment case, emphasized that such “sweeping and mechanical implications” dilute the original intent of the law, which was enacted to protect married women from cruelty and dowry-related abuse.
The observations came in the case where two women, the husband’s aunt (mother’s sister) and cousin, sought to quash an FIR filed under Section 498A IPC.
ALSO READ: Online Gambling or E-Sports? Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Ban Plea
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by a woman alleging that her husband and his relatives had subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry. She also claimed that her jewellery and gifts were taken away and that her husband’s extended family members, including the petitioners, had interfered in her marriage and made threatening remarks.
However, the petitioners contended that they were distant relatives living separately and had no involvement in the couple’s matrimonial affairs. They argued that their names were added maliciously and without evidence, solely due to their relationship with the husband.
Court’s Observations
Justice Mahajan highlighted that Section 498A IPC was enacted to protect women from cruelty and dowry-related abuse. However, he cautioned that its misuse against distant or uninvolved relatives undermines the purpose of the law.
“There has been a growing tendency to rope in even distant relatives of husbands — uncles, aunts, extended family members — who do not even reside at the matrimonial house of the woman and even in the dearth of evidence to highlight their active involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty,”
the Court noted.
“Such omnibus, sweeping and mechanical implication, however, bereft of concrete evidence, dilutes the very intent and sanctity with which the provision was incorporated,”
Justice Mahajan added.
After examining the facts and submissions, the Delhi High Court found no material evidence against the petitioners to suggest their active involvement in the alleged dowry harassment. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Appearance:
The petitioners: Advocates Biraja Mahapatra, Nalin Hingorani and Raunak Jain
The State: Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandopadhya with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta
Case Title:
SHASHI ARORA & ANR. versus STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
W.P.(CRL) 2711/2022
READ JUDGMENT
