Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events. However, this does not mean that genuine cases of harassment didn’t exist, and it is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry.
The Delhi High Court, while hearing a petition to quash an FIR dated 06-10-2017—registered under Sections 498-A and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)—emphasized the rising trend of falsely implicating husbands and their families in matrimonial disputes. Justice Amit Mahajan noted that although Section 498-A was introduced to safeguard married women from harassment, its misuse to pressure husbands and their families has become a growing concern.
The Court underscored that when allegations are vague and filed after an unreasonable delay, allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the legal process. As a result, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.
Background
The FIR in question was filed by Respondent 2 (the ‘wife’) against the petitioner (the ‘husband’) and his family, alleging harassment over dowry demands and the non-return of her stridhan. The couple married on 25-12-2011, with claims that Rs. 10 lakhs were spent on the wedding.
According to the allegations, the husband, along with his father, mother, and brother, taunted the wife, stating that despite his monthly income of Rs. 6 lakhs and multiple marriage proposals, he chose to marry her believing that her father, a government officer, would match their social status.
It was further alleged that the husband’s family had expected a Honda City car and were disappointed that they had not even received a bike. They reportedly ridiculed the wife, accusing her father of being greedy for not providing gold items, a bike, or a car. Additionally, the husband and his father were accused of defaming the wife by questioning her character and refusing to return her stridhan despite repeated requests.
The husband, however, contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case, asserting that the FIR was filed against him and his family to cover up his wife’s alleged extramarital affair. He claimed that their separation was prompted by his discovery of photographs of his wife with another man, after which they mutually agreed to divorce before a biradri panchayat and later filed a joint divorce petition. He further argued that the allegations in the FIR were vague and generalized, and allowing the legal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court emphasized that when legal proceedings are evidently frivolous, vexatious, or initiated with malicious intent for revenge, it is crucial to scrutinize the FIR with heightened caution. It affirmed that the High Court has the authority to examine the surrounding circumstances, review case records, and interpret the matter beyond its literal claims. If the allegations appeared exaggerated or indicated a misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC, the Court could exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to intervene.
Referring to Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, the Court noted that, similar to that case, the present FIR contained broad and vague accusations against the husband, lacking specific details such as the date, time, or nature of the alleged dowry demands or harassment. It stressed that when an FIR is challenged as frivolous, the Court has a duty to look beyond the allegations and assess the broader context.
The Court also observed that in a complaint filed by the wife’s father with the SHO on 09-05-2015, he alleged that the husband and his family had threatened to misuse certain obscene photos and videos to tarnish the wife’s family’s reputation. However, the FIR itself made no mention of such threats. Furthermore, the complaint failed to cite any specific incident of dowry-related harassment by the husband on that date.
Citing these inconsistencies, the Court found merit in the husband’s claim that the allegations were an afterthought and a retaliatory measure against the divorce petition. It further noted that on 23-08-2019, the husband had obtained a divorce decree on the grounds of cruelty, which explicitly stated that the wife had voluntarily engaged in physical intimacy with her boyfriend. Significantly, the wife had not challenged this finding.
The Court also acknowledged the increasing trend of implicating husbands and their families in matrimonial disputes. While Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced to protect married women from harassment, its misuse to exert undue pressure on husbands and their families remained a serious concern. The Court noted that such cases were often filed hastily, sometimes under legal influence, with exaggerated or distorted claims. However, it emphasized that this did not take away from the existence of genuine cases of harassment.
Furthermore, the Court recognized the ongoing social issue of dowry-related greed, which has led to severe mistreatment and suffering for many victims. However, in cases like the present one, where allegations were vague and filed after a substantial delay, allowing the legal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR along with all related proceedings.
