Punjab & Haryana HC Flags Misuse of 498A, Quashes Frivolous Dowry Harassment FIR Against In-Laws

The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has set aside criminal proceedings for dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust against the mother in law and two sisters in law of a woman who had accused her husband and his family of cruelty after their marriage broke down.

However, the Court declined to grant similar relief to the husband, noting that he had violated the conditions of anticipatory bail by leaving the country without permission.

The order was passed by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 2022 under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC at Women Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

The complaint was lodged by the father of Neha Chalana, alleging that his daughter was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband Rahul Shukla and his family members over dowry demands.

According to the complaint, the marriage between Rahul Shukla and Neha was solemnized on 13 April 2018 after being arranged through a matrimonial website.

It was alleged that soon after marriage, the couple left for Shimla, where Rahul began questioning Neha about her past relationship despite having assured before marriage that he had no objections.

The complainant stated that all marriage expenses and gold ornaments were given as per the demands of Rahul’s family.

He further alleged that Rahul’s family insisted on an early wedding so that Neha’s visa could be processed for Australia where Rahul had been living for over a decade.

The FIR claimed that after marriage, Rahul returned to Sydney on 26 April 2018 while Neha left for Doha on 3 May 2018, later joining Rahul in Sydney on 17 May after resigning from her job. Disputes allegedly continued overseas, with Rahul demanding Rs. 8 lakh and money to purchase a car, and also misappropriating Neha’s savings.

The complaint further accused Rahul of physically assaulting Neha during pregnancy and defaming her through social media. It was alleged that his family members supported these demands and harassed her telephonically.

The petitioners contended before the High Court that the allegations were baseless and that no incident had occurred in India to justify registration of the FIR.

It was argued that Neha had filed proceedings for domestic violence in Australia and that their marriage had been dissolved by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 12 September 2019.

They pointed out that Neha had since remarried on 9 November 2020 and moved on with her life. The petitioners asserted that continuation of proceedings was a misuse of the legal process.

The State opposed the plea, stating that the FIR was lodged after proper inquiry and that the petitioners failed to join the investigation despite repeated notices.

It was further submitted that Rahul was detained at Hyderabad airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular and later granted anticipatory bail on 23 December 2024 by the Sessions Court, but subsequently left for Australia without the Court’s permission.

After examining the record, the Court observed,

“Aforesaid facts clearly indicate that no matrimonial dispute took place between couple during their stay in India. Both husband and wife have already taken divorce and moved ahead. There is nothing on record to show that Nidhi Shukla, Rachna Shukla or Asha Rani petitioner Nos.2 to 4 ever visited matrimonial home of Rahul Shukla and Neha Chalana. Therefore, there is no question of any interference on their part in the matrimonial life of the couple. At present, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are on bail and challan qua them is already presented. Contents of FIR No.47 dated 23.04.2022 indicate that allegations against these petitioners No.2 to 4 are vague and without any basis. On the basis of frivolous and bald allegations, present FIR has been registered against them. In-fact, registration of aforesaid FIR is result of vengeance, as the daughter of respondent No.2 Neha Chalana had matrimonial dispute with her husband and for this reason, respondent No.2 Ravinder Singh filed present complaint against Rahul Shukla and his family members who were residing in India. In light of this, registration of FIR… and consequent proceedings thereon is gross misuse of the process of law and accordingly the same qua petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are quashed.”

With respect to Rahul Shukla, the Court refused to quash proceedings, holding that he had “misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted in his favour” by leaving the country without permission.

The petition was therefore partly allowed, proceedings against the in-laws were quashed while the case against Rahul will continue.

Case Title: Rahul Shukla and Ors. v. UT Chandigarh and Anr.

Date of Judgment: August 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Amarjot Bhatti