Roping in Husband’s Family Under 498A Without Scrutiny Amounts to Misuse, Says Delhi HC

While flagging the rampant misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court has observed that implicating a husband’s family in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny and often for extraneous or malicious reasons, amounts to an utter misuse of the law.

Justice Arun Monga, in a detailed 19-page judgment, underscored that although Section 498A IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband’s relatives must be checked.

“Only if the allegations stand legal scrutiny and prima facie exist, should trial proceedings continue. Such an approach protects innocent individuals from facing unnecessary litigation, hardships, harassment and humiliation in the matrimonial crossfire,” the Court said.

The judge further warned of the systemic dangers of proceeding with baseless cases. Long-term ramifications of patently unbelievable allegations, he noted, add unnecessary burden on the judiciary, risk miscarriage of justice, and cause immense personal distress to the accused. “It also risks discrediting the genuine purpose of Section 498A IPC, which is to provide protection and justice to victims of dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty,” Justice Monga added.

Court made these observations while hearing a plea by the complainant-wife’s sister-in-law, who sought quashing of an FIR lodged by the complainant-wife under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC at Patel Nagar police station in 2018.

The FIR had been registered against the complainant-wife’s husband (who later died during the pendency of proceedings), his parents, and his sister. The complainant-wife accused them of dowry harassment, cruelty, and misappropriation of her jewellery and valuables.

In her complaint, the wife alleged that she had been subjected to sustained mental and physical cruelty, including pressure for dowry, humiliation over the birth of a girl child, confinement, and physical assault. She further claimed that between October 2016 and February 2017, her sister-in-law (the petitioner) and her husband stayed with them and encouraged her in-laws and husband to commit more domestic violence.

Before the High Court, the sister-in-law argued that she had been falsely implicated. She pointed out that she was married in 2000 to an Air Force officer who was frequently posted across the country, which meant she lived away from her parental home for long stretches. Apart from a short visit between October 2016 and February 2017, she had little or no contact with the complainant’s matrimonial household.

On the other hand, the complainant-wife, through her counsel, maintained that the FIR clearly established a prima facie case against the petitioner, as she had allegedly subjected the complainant to mental cruelty by using abusive language and by instigating her brother to perpetrate acts of cruelty.

Taking note of the rival submissions, the Court said it is crucial to establish a prima facie case against an accused to prevent misuse of legal provisions and to ensure that the judicial process is not exploited.

“General and omnibus allegations, which are broad and non-specific, cannot and, as in the present case, do not withstand legal scrutiny. Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law. This misuse could result in unnecessary trials that can have long-term ramifications for all parties involved. It is the duty of the court to prevent harassment of individuals having no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty,” Justice Monga observed.

Court further remarked that frivolous allegations may ultimately prove counter-productive for complainants themselves. “The complainant’s frivolous allegations may divert her/prosecution’s attention from genuine issues and undermine even the credibility of legitimate grievance. On the other hand, the accused like the petitioner herein would suffer unwarranted legal battles, social stigma and emotional distress.”

Court concluded that continuing proceedings against her would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR against her."I am of the opinion that registration of the impugned FIR and continuance of proceedings therein against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and that in order to secure he ends of justice, the said FIR as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed." the Court said.

However, it clarified that the trial against the other co-accused, including the complainant’s in-laws, will continue in accordance with law.

Case Title: Pooja Rasne @ Puja Rasne vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Judgment Date: 29th August, 2025

Bench: Justice Arun Monga