A single judge of AP High Court held that, When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved,it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. Conviction u/s 498A IPC was set aside.

From Para 7.6

7.6 On a plain reading of the entire complaint/FIR, it appears that the allegation of torture was made against both A.1 and A.2 only for the demand of additional dowry. When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved, as observed by learned Appellate Court, it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. That is to say, when there is an allegation of torture upon a married woman by her husband and relatives on account of a demand for additional dowry, after conclusion of the trial, if it appears that the demand for dowry has not been proved, the allegation of torture itself cannot stand independently.

and from Para 7.9 and 7.10,

7.9 Considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the view that in a criminal case, when there is a clear allegation of torture upon a married woman on account of a demand for additional dowry, and after trial it has been disproved that there were no demand for additional dowry, the sole allegation of torture, as alleged to have been meted out by the husband and his relatives, cannot stand alone; moreover, delay in lodging FIR was not explained by prosecution in this case.
7.10 Under the above observation, in my view, the conviction of A.1 under Section 498-A of IPC, solely on the basis of the allegation of torture without any demand for additional dowry, cannot be maintainable.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Quash Judgments is here.