Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations?

Continuing from Round-1 litigation here, this page captures the Round-2 litigation efforts.

Now that the Respondent #3 in WP(PIL).No. 115/2025 admitted to AP High Court that Dowry Advisory Boards were activated hurriedly from August 2025, the next step was to check if the Dowry Prohibition Officers are actually performing the DPO Activities (specifically the 6 police powers) as the Government of Andhra Pradesh mandates under G.O.Ms.No. 69 dt: 24-Jun-1989. I filed RTI applications as mentioned below and the summary of the replies is captured in an Excel tracker.

On 05-Jun-2026, based on some of my observations, I sent an email representation to the District Collectors (who are designated as Chairmen/Chairperson of the District Dowry Advisory Boards u/s 8B(4) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961) giving my ‘suggestions’ on 6 aspects. The following is that email. Around 50 email IDs failed.

2026-06-05 Email Representation to the Chairs of Advisory Boards in AP

Quite a few replies received to my original RTI application filed in March 2026. Prepared the following summary.

Tracking of RTI Replies

The representation reached the Revenue Department on 15-Jun-2026 (Speed Post Consignment/Tracking Number: EN538130321IN). Now wait for four weeks for any response and then file the WP(PIL) before APHC.

Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026 – Judgment Summary

Posted on April 5 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Charul Shukla vs State of U.P. & Others (2026), the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings against the complainant’s sister-in-law and parents-in-law. The case alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court carefully examined whether the allegations—filed after a delay of over six years—were supported by material evidence. It found that the accusations were largely vague, omnibus, and unsubstantiated, particularly against relatives who were either living separately or were senior citizens.

“21. At the same time, the said allegations also have to be juxtaposed with the fact that the complaint was registered by the complainant only on 15.11.2023 i.e. after a delay of more than six years and seven months from the alleged dowry demand. The prosecution has failed to put forth any sufficient cause for such delay and this casts aspersions on their story. At this juncture, we find it apposite to underline the importance of taking an early recourse to pursue and prosecute criminal complaints.”
“22. Time and again, this Court has observed that merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start the criminal machinery of the State.”
“23. Upon bare perusal of the Chargesheet No.01/2024 and the medical examination report annexed thereto, no offence under Section 313 of IPC has been made out. The attached medical examination report fails to ascribe or delineate any particular injury that relates to or supports the claim of the complainant either. We must hasten to add that upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer also deemed it fit to drop the charges under Section 313 of IPC against the accused/appellants.”
“24. It would not be out of place to mention that the delay of almost seven years between the alleged incident and lodgment of the FIR has not been explained sufficiently by the complainant.”
“25. It is merely stated that the father- in-law held her hands and tried to commit obscene acts with her. The complainant has failed to elaborate upon said ‘obscene acts’ allegedly committed by him. It is trite that the FIR cannot be an encyclopaedia of the events but even upon the perusal of the chargesheet as presented by the investigation officer, the counsel for prosecution/State has not been able to substantiate or discern any substantive material in support of the allegation under Section 354 of IPC. At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that the complainant herself has failed to enter appearance in the present proceedings despite service of notice upon her. The said non-appearance, despite the service of notice being complete upon her, inevitably draws our attention towards an adverse inference that the complainant herself is indifferent and uninterested in contesting the said appeals.”

Decision

Importantly, the Court emphasized that:

Mere allegations without supporting evidence cannot justify criminal prosecution.
Delay in lodging FIR, especially in matrimonial disputes, must be satisfactorily explained.
Courts must guard against misuse of criminal law to harass family members.

Applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellants.

Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026

Citation : 2026 INSC 297

Other Sources :

Index of Quash Judgements is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore the relevant concepts;

Abuse of process of Law
Cruelty under IPC
Cognizable and Non-cognizable offences
Quashing of Fir

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 – Judgement Summary

Posted on March 13 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court examined a case where the husband challenged his conviction for alleged cruelty and dowry demand. The prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of the complainant and her father. However, the Court found that the allegations lacked specific dates, incidents, and supporting evidence. Moreover, the complainant failed to produce medical records to support allegations of assault or miscarriage.

Therefore, the Court reiterated that criminal courts must rely on clear, specific, and credible evidence. Mere general accusations cannot justify a conviction under Section 498A IPC.

“In the present case, the allegations made by the Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the Complainant has not given any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.”

“It is alleged that the Complainant suffered a miscarriage… however, no medical document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was produced to substantiate the allegations.”

“Apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961.”

“This growing tendency to append every relative of the husband casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family members and vitiates the very objective of a protective legislation.”

Decision of the Court

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or dowry demand with reliable evidence. The allegations remained vague and unsupported by independent proof.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of UP on 13 May 2025

Citation :2025 INSC 671

Other Sources :

Index of Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Posted on February 17 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A and Section 504 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court examined the complaint in detail. It found that the allegations described routine marital disagreements. They did not disclose grave cruelty or a specific unlawful dowry demand.

The Bench clarified an important principle. Section 498A IPC does not criminalise incompatibility or ordinary wear and tear of marriage. Criminal law cannot become a tool in matrimonial discord.

The following paragraphs formed the core reasoning of the Court:

Para 8
“A careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant/wife as his servant. These allegations even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but falls woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Para 8 (continued)
“If this is the complaint against the husband and in-laws, it cannot but be held that it is an abuse of the process of law, as minor skirmishes that happens in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC.”
Para 9
“The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills. It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry.”
Para 12
“The present case forms, as observed hereinabove, a classic illustration of the said abuse. The Apex Court, in such cases, holds that the offence should be nipped in the bud by interfering under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
Para 26
“The allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations… It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.”

Abuzar ahmed Vs State of Karanataka on 8 Jan 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan
B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Dowry Prohibition Officers of Telangana working?

Posted on January 16 by ShadesOfKnife

After moving a PIL before AP High Court here, now I chose to approach Telangana High Court with same prayers.

As usual, we have the routine drill to file RTIs which was done in 2025 itself! The following are the RTI applications (along with First and Second Appeals)

RTI Application to Home Department (Prosecutions) of TS. Deemed Refusal.

P3 2025-07-26 RTI Filed to TS Home Department

First Appeal to Home Department (Prosecutions) of TS. Deemed Refusal. Again.

P4 2025-08-25 First Appeal Filed TSRTI-FAA-HOM-25-08-25-DI-4274

Finally the Second Appeal to Telangana State Information Commission.

P5a 2025-10-18 Second Appeal to Telangana State Information Commission

2026-03-11:

PIL Filed and S.R. No. given. 11482/2026.

Index to all Goals here.

Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working?

Posted on July 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

After failing to make sense of the hypocrisy of Police and Judiciary on the fact that Dowry giving is equally punishable as much as Dowry taking under same section i.e., Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, so I decided to go in a different route.

The usual combo of offences that Police add to a FIR in a matrimonial crime is Section 498A IPC (Max Imprisonment is 3 years with fine) + Section 3 of DP Act (Imprisonment not less than five years with fine) + Section 4 of DP Act (Imprisonment not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine).

So, this time my attack is to target the larger offence in this combo i.e., Section 3 of DP Act (Imprisonment not less than five years with fine) and cripple the false Criminal matrimonial cases to half.

How to do that? I found one aspect from the DP Act itself that I can use to poke the eyes of devil of the false Criminal matrimonial cases. Section 8B of DP Act. As is evident, this is just the first piece of the larger puzzle. Few more PILs are necessary to break the back of this nonsense but one may not survive until that glorious moment. I will document next steps/PILs shortly.

After some research and RTI applications, found that Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No. 69 dt: 24-Jun-1989 and some other G.O.s, designated the Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors take up cases under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, instead of Police Department. Now, every tom, dick and harry in our Sunshine State knows that the Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors in our State are NOT taking up cases under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 due to ignorance or reluctance. Quite a nice bit of realization that this deserves a PIL to fix it! Hence this PIL.

Here is the G.O. copy received from Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Government of AP. It is not legible so better you file RTI and get a neat copy for yourself.

1989-Jun-24 G.O.Ms.No. 69

Here is the Petition copy:

2025-07-08 Dowry Prohibition Officers under sec 8B of DPA v0.1

On 16-Jul-2025, Court-1 heard me and directed Respondents to file Counter.

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 16-Jul-2025

On 31-Jul-2025: Contacted the Special GP today seeking to know if any instructions were received but she clarified no instructions were yet issued. She did say it is a for a ‘good cause‘. Even though I know that already, happy that, a woman backed my PIL

On 08-Oct-2025, as expected, no Counter was filed by the Respondents and shamelessly, sought time and the ever-benevolent High Court granted them 3 months time.

NDOH: 28-Jan-2026

1 Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 08-Oct-2025

On 15-Nov-2025, unexpectedly, I got to know that the Director, Women and Development and Child Welfare Department, Guntur has issued a letter to all Collectors and District Magistrates vide Lr.No. WDC02-25022/2019-PROGRAMS SEC. dt:04-08-2025. Content? On 16-Jul-2025, the AG’s office shot a letter to Director, WDCW Department, Guntur regarding my PIL, since on the same day the first hearing happened! Here is the copy of that letter. Thanks to Vinay Kumar K _/\_

2025-08-04 Women And child welfare department issue letter for distirct Collectors

On 28-Jan-2026, Court-1 did not convene. Still the Office of AG sent me a copy of the Counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 (Women Development and Child welfare Department). Read it. Share it. Enjoy it.

2026-01-28 Reply by R3 LAW040301283

Prepared a ‘nice’ Rejoinder and filed into Court on 05-Feb-2026. Let’s see what happens next. Thanks a lot to ChatGPT and Google Gemini for proof-reading and improving my Rejoinder!

2026-02-05 Rejoinder to the Counter of R3 v0.1

No new date yet. Court-1 was not convened. Need to mention on Monday.

On 11-Feb-2026, the PIL was listed but did not reach. It was listed for 18-Mar-2026.

On 18-Mar-2026, what will happen?

Never expected that someone at the stature of the Chief Justice of a High Court can be such a dumb-ass idiotic muff. Read the Order below yourself and tally it against the Prayers of PIL.

2026-03-18 Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 18-Mar-2026

Silver lining is even for name same (only for this PIL sake), Dowry Advisory Boards were activated hurriedly from August 2025. Let’s see if this continues. To check same, already filed RTI applications to all three Respondents. Still awaiting replies.

EN500288002IN delivered at AP POLICE HQ, Mangalagiri on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to SPIO, DGP Office, regarding DPO+Police Activities wrt DP Act/G.O.Ms.No. 69
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

EN500287885IN delivered at AP Secretariat on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to PIO, Revenue Department, regarding DPO Activities
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

EN500287885IN delivered at Guntur on 30 Mar 2026
Representation to PIO, Commissioner of WDCW Department, regarding DPO Activities
Wait until 30-Apr-2026

I did receive some replies based on which I am initiating Round-2 of the litigation on this subject here.

Same attack to be done in Telangana, Kerala and Karnataka too. RTIs filed. Telangana PIL is here.

Index to all Goals here.

Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989 [SC:Cruelty should be such that, as to make woman commit harm to herself]
Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 [CalHC: Agreement is prerequisite for Sec 4 conviction]
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992 [BomHC: Any property demanded not in connection of marriage is not dowry]
Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993 [SC: Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not unconstitutional]
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001 [Presumption does not let Prosecution free from establishing their case before burden of proof shifts to accused]
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001 [BomHC: Dowry demand is made out anytime before, during or after marriage, as long it is in connection with marriage]
State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009 [SC: Giving dowry under demand is a crime u/s 3 of DP Act read with Sec 2 of the DP Act]
Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011 [KarHC: Relies on this case here]
Uma Devi Vs State and Anr on 01 Aug 2011 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 (Overruled)
Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013 [MadHC: Relies on SC decision State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors here]
Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out]
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015 [Dowry not proved in a DV Case]
Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Landmark: Demand for dowry in connection with marriage]
Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016 []
Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016 [Dowry element is time-barred due to AP DP Rules 1998]
Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016 []
Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 [Invoked AP DP Rules 1998]
Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018 [Gifts are not Dowry]
M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Dowry should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage]
Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 [SC : Vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.]

Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc

Dowry Prohibition Act here.

State-enacted Rules are here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions – Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) Jurisprudence in India

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.

Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.

In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:

Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
Section 304B IPC – Dowry death
Section 34 IPC – Common intention

These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.

Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.

Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.

Punishment varies depending on the severity:

Simple dowry demand may attract imprisonment and a fine.
In cases of dowry death (death within 7 years of marriage due to dowry harassment), enhanced punishment under Section 304B IPC is applied.
Courts have often noted that dowry offences are serious and socially harmful, justifying strict penalties.

Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.

Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.

Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.

Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:

Death occurs within 7 years of marriage,
There is proof of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demand,
The conduct of the accused suggests involvement.
Courts have clarified that even in the absence of direct evidence, consistent and cogent circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction.

Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.

Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.

NCRB does not collect Info on Dowry Givers

Posted on July 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Response I got from NCRB stating that ‘Information on persons arrested for crime of giving dowry is not collected by NCRB‘

NCRB does not collect Info on Dowry Givers

Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October 2018

Posted on December 12, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In a rare act, Justice Satyanarayan Murthy has given a Quash order in a false 498A IPC case. He also invoked AP Dowry Prohibition Rule 1998 which are available here.

Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018

Citations:

Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114175976/

Amendments made to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Posted on September 8, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are the 1984 and 1986 amendments made to Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 here.

The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984

The Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986

Contact me here for ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Dowry Prohibition Act 1961

Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations?