Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Doesn't Mean Genuine Cases Of Harassment Don't Exist: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not mean that genuine cases of harassment do not exist.

“This Court is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry, due to which, numerous victims are subjected to unspeakable conduct and harassment,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

The Court observed that in matters where vague allegations are made against the husband, that too belatedly, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“Courts have taken note of the increasing tendency of implicating the husband and his family in matrimonial litigation in a number of cases. While the provision of Section 498A of the IPC was introduced with an object to combat harassment meted out to married woman,” the Court said.

It added: “…however, it is abysmal to note that the same is now also being misused as a tool to harass the husband and his family members and gain a leverage. Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events.”

Justice Mahajan quashed an FIR registered in 2017 against a husband for the offences under Section 498A (cruelty) of IPC.

The FIR was registered at the behest of the wife against the husband and his family members alleging harassment on the ground of demand for dowry and for not returning her stridhan.

The Court noted that the FIR was registered in 2017, more than years after the husband had filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

It observed that allegations were made in the FIR against the husband and his family members in a sweeping manner. Noting that chargesheet in the case was filed only against the husband and not his family members, the Court said:

“In the current case as well, sweeping and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. No date or time or particulars of the alleged instances of demand for dowry or harassment have been specified in the FIR.”

The Court concluded that no allegations were levelled in the FIr in relation to any threats, however, it could not be ignored that even in the complaint, no specific incident of harassment by the husband for dowry was spelt out.

“On the other hand, the complaint seems to suggest that the petitioner refused to take dowry at the time of marriage and the rancour was between the petitioner's family and Respondent No.2,” the Court said.

Title: AJAY v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184

Click here to read order