Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Posted on June 27, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court hung the false 498A IPC case high and dry and reminded the High Courts of their solemn duty to stop the misuse of matrimonial laws as weapons.

From Para 8,

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….

From Para 18,

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.

From Paras 19-21,

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 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 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.

From Paras 24 and 25,

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, 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 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.

From Para 28,

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 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.

From Para 29, (Cover drive by Supreme Court!)

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 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.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93461652/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6759166862941119016e1691

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370197-dara-lakshmi-narayana-others?s=Dara%20Lakshmi%20Narayana&refine_search=&s_acts=

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/dara-lakshmi-narayana-others-v-state-of-telangana-another-2024-insc-953-498a-ipc-fir-quashed-1560806

https://www.lawtext.in/judgement.php?bid=1285

https://advamritaverma.com/legal-updates/f/498-a-ipc-has-become-the-legal-weapon?blogcategory=CPC

The Order from Telangana High Court refusing to Quash the fake 498A IPC proceedings…

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Feb 2022

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Posted on June 26, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court cautioned High Courts about malicious matrimonial cases.

From Para 30,

30. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Posted on June 26, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench identified a fake case and dust-binned it.

From Para 7,

7 At the outset, we would like to start with observations that in matrimonial disputes suppression of facts carry importance. In fact, the marriage stands on the footing of faith, feelings and respect for each other.
….
In the information that was collected by applicant No.1 from the Right to Information Officer, Kharghar Police Station would show that the informant has been addressed as Dr. Sou. Sandhya Ashok Kadam (not as ‘Sandhya Ajay Khare’). If she had gone to Police Station and according to her, First Information Report was not taken, then why she had not lodged the report after she went to Nanded i.e. to her parental home, has not been explained by her. It is easy to make allegations against others, but when it comes to false allegations, they are hard to prove. This is the classic example of misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

Posted on June 17, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court granted Divorce to husband against a lying wife.

From Para 10,

10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Home & Ors.2, fits perfectly to the present scenario:
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly specific allegations levelled against him are also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of “cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat3 and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh.4 The Complainant has admittedly failed to produce any medical records or injury reports, x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant even withdrew her second Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on 12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to substantiate the purported demand for dowry allegedly made by the Appellant or his family and the investigative agencies in their own prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the chargesheet.

From Para 13,

13. It is rather unfortunate that the Complainant being an officer of the State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this growing tendency to misuse legal provisions has time and again been condemned by this Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.5, Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.6 aptly captures this concern.

From Para 15,

15. It is a settled position of law that for the computation of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.7 The dicta laid down in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh8 makes it unequivocally clear that the Magistrate is well within his powers to take cognizance of a complaint filed within a period of three years from the date of the commission of offence as mandated under section 468 CrPC.

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Posted on June 16, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madras High Court passed this Judgment.

From Para 16, (How simple mistakes can turn evidence into trash!)

16. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this Court to Ex-R.4 in H.M.O.P. No.702 of 2021 – Screenshot of Whatsapp Chat dated October 17, 2017, and would argue that the respondent herself admitted that everything is her fault and apologised to the petitioner about 10 days before making Ex-R.5 – Complaint and that in such a scenario, Ex-R.5 – Complaint could only be a false one. This Court has perused Ex-R.4 – Screenshot. It appears that the petitioner has received a message from a contact whom he has saved as “ANU”. The respondent has denied the said message in her cross-examination. The burden is upon the petitioner to prove Ex-R.4 –Screenshot. It is true that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be strictly applicable to family court matters, in view of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. But, said Section 14 does not dispense with the burden of proof. The burden remains upon the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden. The petitioner has not taken any steps to prove that the said contact from which he received such a message, is his wife / respondent. Hence, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

From Para 17,

17. Be that as it may, whether the averments contained in Ex- R.5 – Complaint are true or not is a matter for police investigation and the truth can be found only in the trial. But there was no investigation in the first place. The averments remain unestablished. The averments made in Ex-R.5 are of such nature that unless proved, they amount to defamation, which in turn constitutes to mental cruelty. If really the said averments are true, the respondent ought to have taken prudent steps to prove her averments when the petitioner failed to reunite with her. Unsubstantiated or uncorroborated defamatory averments made in Ex-R.5, causes stigma and mental agony to the petitioner as well as his family, and in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to cruelty.

From Paras 20-21,

20. As elaborated above, the unestablished sexual allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and his father, amounts to cruelty and thus, the petitioner has made out a case under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of H.M. Act. Points for consideration arising in these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are answered accordingly. The petitioner is thus entitled to a Decree of divorce.
21. It is learnt that the petitioner is paying a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent and his 8 year old child (who is under the custody of the respondent) every month. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, especially the stand taken by the respondent that she is ready and willing to let go of the past and resume her marital life with the petitioner, this Court is of the view that though divorce is granted in favour of the petitioner, maintenance rights of the respondent shall remain unaffected.

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Index to Divorce Judgments is here.

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 21 Oct 2024

Posted on October 26, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.

From Paras 11-13,

11. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to keep reminded of the observations of this Court in the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1. This Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
12. We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons.
13. The upshot of the discussion is that the finding of guilt against the appellant by the courts below for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, with the aid of Section 34, IPC, is absolutely perverse in view of the absolute absence of any evidence against him to connect him with the said offence in any manner.

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 21 Oct 2024

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

Posted on July 1, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows, while quashing false FIR against In-Laws,

From Para 10,

10. There are scores and scores of cases where allegations are made that have pointed overt acts by every member of the family which are sustained and further trial is permitted. There are even scores and scores of cases where every member of the family without rhyme or reason is dragged into the web of crime by frivolous complaints registered by the complainant/wife while the entire grievance is against the husband and every imaginary member of the family is dragged in. It is these cases which are to be nipped in the bud. Bud, I mean, at the stage of registration of the crime, failing which, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Ankit Singh and 3 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr

Posted on May 16, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge at Allahabad High Court held as follows,

On 16 Jul 2024

From Paras ,

On 23 May 2024

From Paras 18-24,

18. This Court is witnessing that in cases where allegations of dowry is being made, same is being investigated by police and not by Dowry Prohibition Officer. The police in case diary are not recording whether procedure under the Rules of 1999 are being followed more particularly whether the principle provided under Rule 6 (4) and Rule 7 (9) of Rules of 1999 are being implemented in letter and spirit. It is to be noted that Dowry Prohibition Officer under Rule 6(4) of Rules of 1999 is empowered to take preventive and remedial measures (to save the marriage) and can pass orders in this respect, which the police is not empowered under law. Once the mandate as to whether the parties to marriage is required to be prosecuted for an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act is to be decided by the Dowry Prohibition Officer then how the police authority is bypassing the aforesaid special procedure and jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer and are submitting chargesheet against the groom and his family members.
19. This Court is observing that in many cases the allegations are being levelled against groom and his family members with regard to dowry and other offences. The chargesheet is been submitted by police in a mechanical manner just by recording the statement of bride or their family members. In order to take away jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer, along with offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, allegations are also being levelled with regard to provisions of Indian Penal Code. In respect of offence under Dowry Prohibition Act, authority to collect evidence and prosecute is vested with Dowry Prohibition Officer and when other offences are also involved then the State Government can always resort to Section 8B (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, in the garb of allegations with regard to offence under the Indian penal code being levelled by the informant, the jurisdiction of the Dowry Prohibition Officer cannot be taken away in respect of offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
20. A unique situation has arisen on account of the enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Rules of 1999. The offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act would be examined and prosecuted by the Dowry Probation Officer while keeping into account the principles laid down under Rule 6 (4) of the Rules of 1999. However, when the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act is investigated along with other offences under the Indian Penal Code then the principal of saving the marriage being resorted to at the first instance (as per Rule 6 (4) of the Rules of 1999), is ignored and the chargesheet and criminal prosecution is being resorted to by police. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that once an offence is arising out of marriage and allegations with regard to dowry is made then the Dowry Prohibition Officer is required to examine the dispute at the first instance by resorting to the principal laid down in Rule 6 (4) of Rules of 1999 and upon being satisfied that all of the measures to save the marriage are not effective then Dowry Prohibition Officer can recommend for prosecution or himself prosecute. Any other interpretation of law would mean that bride or her family members may resort to allegations under the Indian penal code along with allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby take away the jurisdiction of Dowry Prohibition Officer and straight away expose the groom and their family members to the rigour of criminal law and deprived them of liberty although dispute may be a matrimonial dispute between parties. Even otherwise, the State government is required to examine the necessity of exercising the power under Section 8B (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act to remove such an anomaly.
21. It is further to be noted that Rule 6 (12) of Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (as amended by Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition (First Amendment) Rules, 2004) provides that Dowry Prohibition Officer shall render assistance to police investigating complaint filed under the Dowry Prohibition Act or to the court in the trial of the case. In none of cases coming up before this Court, where the police are investigating, it is found that any assistance is being rendered to police by Dowry Prohibition Officer. The purpose of Rule 6 (12) of the Rules of 1999 is to involve the Dowry Prohibition Officer at the stage of investigation so that he can pass orders for remedial and preventive nature in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1999. The involvement of an officer who is a person outside the police department is to initiate remedial measures and collect evidence. The case diaries of investigation are not revealing that Dowry Prohibition Officer has rendered assistance in investigation. Such an approach when the matter is being investigated by police is not desirable.
22. It is further to be noted that in first information report, bride or her family members are stating that they have given dowry at time of marriage. In many cases, dowry is alleged to have been given in cash being huge amount. As per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, giving of dowry or betting to giving dowry is also an offence. The bride and her family members are blatantly stating in First Information Report and in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that they have given dowry of huge amount at time of marriage to groom and his family members. The bride and her family members in defiance of the law, which prohibits giving dowry, are indulging in giving dowry as per their own admission. Although, bride or her family members who are giving dowry are offenders as per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, however they are not being prosecuted in view of Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The effect of Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is that bride or her family members, who indulge in giving dowry although being an offender under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, cannot be proceeded with for prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The situation can be summarised that a person who is giving dowry will not be prosecuted as per the bar under law, however receiver of dowry is being prosecuted. The situation is alarming as some citizens (bride or her family members) are openly giving in writing to authorities that they have given dowry, which is indicative of fact that they have no respect to law laid down by Parliament. It is for the executive to take effective measures so that the situation does not arise where the citizens openly disrespect the law laid down by the Parliament or State Legislature, otherwise, the law with regard to prohibition in giving dowry would be a dead letter.
23. It is also being observed by this Court that in first information report or in the statement, it is being alleged that huge amount of cash is paid at the time of marriage to the groom or his family members, as dowry. Section 269ST of Income Tax Act prohibits cash transaction beyond Rupees two lakhs, however bride and her family members are openly giving statement in the first information report or during investigation that they have paid dowry in cash beyond Rupees two Lakhs to groom or his family members. Even, when the amount is being paid in cash as dowry, is beyond the limit prescribed by law, neither any investigation is being carried out as to source of aforesaid amount nor any investigation with regard to utilisation aspect by groom side is being made by police or investigating officer. Even the amount given as dowry in cash is not being recovered during investigation by police authorities. Only on the basis of statement of person who has given dowry, the chargesheet is being filed against groom and his family members.
24. A person who has given dowry is also an offender under Dowry Prohibition Act and solely relying on the statement of such a person who defies the law and is an offender, the groom side is being proceed with, which is not permissible nor desirable. The investigating officer is required to look at corroborative evidence in this respect. The source of huge cash (beyond permissible limit) alleged to be given in dowry is required to be investigated and whether such huge cash was given by known sources of income is also required to be investigated. Even otherwise, amount given in dowry are crime proceeds (being amount from illegal activity) as such the same are also required to be recovered during investigation.

From Paras 28-29,

28. If source of dowry/cash is not found during investigation nor the dowry amount is recovered from accused-person then solely relying upon the statement of person who has given dowry (who is also an offender under the Dowry Prohibition Act) will be unjust, unfair and unreasonable. It is to be seen that the person giving dowry is an offender under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act however such a person cannot be prosecuted in view of the bar provided under Section 7 (3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bar of prosecution of person giving dowry does not remove his status as an offender under Dowry Prohibition Act however only effect of such a bar is that he cannot be criminally proceeded with or prosecuted. In these circumstances, solely relying on statement of offender (person giving dowry) for prosecution of groom or his family members under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not fair, just or reasonable. Some other evidence to corroborate the allegations is required to be looked into including source of dowry amount and whether the individual has given dowry from known sources of income more particularly when allegation of dowry is beyond the limit of cash transaction prescribed under the Income Tax Act.
29. There is another aspect of matter, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the punishment for demand of dowry may extend to 2 years and punishment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is a term which extend to three years however the punishment for receiving dowry under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not less than five years. Where except for the allegation of giving huge amount in dowry there is no other corroborative evidence (as discussed hereinabove or where the dowry amount which are the proceeds of the crime are not recovered during investigation), it may be that the allegations under section 3 have been made so that the groom and his family members are prosecuted for bigger punishment in order to take vengeance in a matrimonial dispute.

From Para 31,

31. It is therefore, imperative that investigation in dowry matters should examine whether the presents that are being alleged as dowry are customary in nature and whether the same is within the financial status of the person who is giving dowry. A person who does not have financial status/means to give the dowry and is also not able to substantiate the source of dowry given, may be indicative of fact that the allegations are incorrect or that there is use of undisclosed income or back money or there is tax evasion. Use of black money or tax evasion is required to be reported to authorities under the Income Tax Act as the same does not stand protected under Section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Where there is no substantive evidence with regard to giving or receiving dowry then only on the basis of the statement of an offender, criminal prosecution under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should not be permitted. In such matters either further investigation is required to be carried out or provisions of Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act may have to be eliminated from prosecution on account of lack of substantive evidence. Such aspect of matters is required to be examined by the appropriate authority.

Ankit Singh and 3 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 23 May 2024

On 08 May 2024

From Paras 4-11,

4. The legislature in its wisdom carved out an exception by providing that the presents which are given to the bride or the bridegroom at the time of marriage are not construed as dowry attracting Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In order that the aforesaid exception is available to an individual, it is necessary that the aforesaid presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the Rules made under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 have been framed in this respect by the Central Government in the Indian marriage system gifts and presents act as a token of celebration and honouring the important event. The legislature was aware of the Indian tradition and as such the above mentioned exception was carved out. The above mentioned list would also act as a measure to thrash out the allegations of dowry which are subsequently levelled in matrimonial dispute. The maintenance of the list is also important so that both the parties to the marriage and their family members may not level false allegation of taking dowry or giving dowry in a marriage subsequently. The arrangement made by the Dowry Prohibition Act may also assist in subsequent litigation between the parties to arrive at a conclusion whether the allegations with regard to the taking or giving of dowry is covered by the exception carved out under section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. Before this Court the parties to the marriage are filing cases with allegations of dowry, however, no list in terms of Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules of 1985 are being filed by the husband or the wife or their family members. It may be a case where no list is being prepared by the parties to the marriage. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid provision is in any manner being monitored or implemented by any responsible officer of the State Government. Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is required to be implemented in its letter and spirit so that citizens are not subject matter of frivolous litigation.
6. As per the aforesaid provision of law, list of presents which are required to be entered in a list and the aforesaid list is required to be signed by both bride and bridegroom. Under section 8B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Dowry Prohibition Officers are required to be appointed for the purpose to see that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act are complied with.
7. The Chief Secretary, U.P. or any other officer authorised by him shall file an affidavit as to whether in terms of Section 8B of the Act, Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed by the State Government.
8. In the event, Dowry Prohibition Officers have not been appointed till date, the State Government shall explain as to why the Dowry Prohibition Officers have not been appointed when the dispute of dowry is rising.
9. In the event, the State Government has appointed Dowry Prohibition Officers, it is then imperative that the steps taken by such Dowry Prohibition officers towards implementation of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act is shown in respect of preparation of list of presents given in the marriage as per section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The State Government shall also disclose the orders issued for implementation of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. The Dowry Prohibition Officers are enjoined with the duty to ensure compliance of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The affidavit shall also disclose how many Dowry Prohibition Officers have been appointed throughout the State and at what level.
10. The State Government shall also file an affidavit to the effect whether at the time of registration of marriage, list of presents as required by the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 are being taken by the officers and being maintained so that subsequently in the event there is dispute between the parties to marriage with regard to the presents being given in marriage being designated as dowry, the same can be verified.
11. The State Government shall also file an affidavit whether any rules (for carrying out the purpose of the Dowry Prohibition Act) in terms of Section 10 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been enacted by the State Government. A copy of the same shall also be placed before this Court on the next date.

Ankit Singh and 3 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 08 May 2024

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Posted on March 20, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. He further submits that cognizance of the charge-sheet filed by the police was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate only against accused no.1, that is, Mr. Yogesh Gupta, and summons were issued to him alone vide order dated 22.12.2020. Later, by an order dated 06.07.2022, summons were issued also against other accused, including the petitioners herein. He submits that this is a procedure unknown to law.
12. He further submits that charges inter alia against the petitioners have been framed on 24.01.2023 in absence of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners, due to an inadvertent error, had noted the next date of hearing as 24.02.2023, which is also reflected on the official website of the Courts, and had not appeared on 24.01.2023.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.,(Supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and in the increasing tendency of the complainant to implicate the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
18. The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the precedents on this issue in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and held that in the absence of any specific and distinct allegations being made against the family members of the husband and where there are only general and omnibus allegations, the FIR registered against such family members is liable to be quashed. It was further held that, in fact, in such cases if the family members are forced to go through the tribulations of trial, it would inflict severe scars upon them and such exercise must be discouraged.

From Para 22, (hehehehe)

21. As clever case of drafting, specific allegations have been made dating back to around 1994-95 against Mr.Vimal Aggarwal, the other maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms.Anu Aggarwal. Specific allegations against the petitioners dating back to 18.07.2007 have been made. As noted hereinabove, the complaint has been filed almost 10 years thereafter.

From Para 23,

23. In Mahmood Ali and Others (Supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not and, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.

From Para 24,

24. Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members. If only on such averment, the family members are to face agony of the trial, it would defeat the ends of the justice. In my opinion, therefore, the Court must scrutinise the complaint/FIR to determine whether the allegations are a case of clever drafting or have at least some element of truth in the same. Though the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, the Court also cannot be a mere spectator and refuse to exercise the power that is vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where it finds that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the ends of the justice and would amount to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the accused and be an abuse of the criminal process.

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023

Posted on November 11, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Jharkhand High Court held the open secret of misuse of 498A IPC.

From Paras 8-12,

8. With the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted in the statute. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years and it appears that in many cases, the object of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused and the said Section is used as weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , reported in [(2014) 8 SCC 273], certain guidelines have been issued how to arrest a person against whom matrimonial disputes are there.
9. Such type of cases are being filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 667].
10. Little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume erious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are falsely implicated by the wives. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 741].
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in [(2018) 14 SCC 452] has observed that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
12. The above line of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly suggest that how Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused nowadays.

Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023

Index of Quash judgments here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Legal Terrorism

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025

Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025

V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 21 Oct 2024

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

Ankit Singh and 3 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023