A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.
Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No.2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. {Para 24}
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2025
arising out of Diary No.47072 of 2023)
BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR Vs STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER
Author: NAGARATHNA, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1471.
Delay Condoned.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.04.2023 passed
by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in
Criminal Petition No.4364 of 2023 dismissing the criminal petition
filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, “CrPC”) preferred by the accused-appellant herein, and
thereby refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR
No.29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 registered with Saroornagar
Women Police Station, District Rachakonda under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “DP Act”) and
Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022 on the file of the Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District.
3. The said FIR was filed by Smt. Nalla Rashmi, the
complainant-respondent No.2, against her husband, the accusedappellant
herein, her father-in-law, one Belide Anjaiah (accused
No.2), her mother-in-law, one Belide Sandhya Rani (accused No.
3), her brothers-in-law Belide Ranjith Kumar and Belide Santosh
Kumar (accused Nos.4 and 5) and her sister-in-law, one Belide
Vishnu Priya (accused No.6) under Section 498A of the IPC and
Section 4 of the DP Act. Based on the said FIR, respondent No.1 -
State filed a Final Report in the form of Chargesheet arraigning all
the accused persons including the accused-appellant herein, giving
rise to Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022.
4. It is pertinent to mention herein that the accused Nos.2 to 6,
i.e. the parents-in-law and other accused of the complainantrespondent
No.2 preferred Criminal Petition No.4025 of 2022,
before the High Court for the State of Telangana seeking quashing
of the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforementioned FIR
and complaint case qua them. The said Criminal Petition No.4025
of 2022 was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 23.04.2025
and therefore all the proceedings qua the said accused persons
were quashed. The husband i.e. the accused-appellant of the
complainant-respondent No.2 has preferred the present appeal.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainantrespondent
No.2 and the accused-appellant, both software
engineers working in the USA, got married on 04.12.2016 at
Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh; thereafter both of them cohabited in
Michigan, USA and on 26.04.2019, the couple was blessed with a
son.
6. On 05.08.2019, on account of matrimonial discord, the
complainant-respondent No.2 along with her minor son moved
back to India and started living in her parental house at Hyderabad
and since then there has been no resumption of cohabitation
between the parties. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 11.01.2022
was sent by the accused-appellant to the complainant-respondent
No.2 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and asking her to return
to USA.
7. On 24.01.2022, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a
complaint against the accused-appellant and his family members.
Based on the said complaint, FIR No.29 of 2022 was registered on
27.01.2022 at Saroornagar Women Police Station under section
498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.
8. Thereafter, on 02.02.2022, the Saroornagar Women Police
Station issued a look-out circular against the accused-appellant
and a chargesheet was filed arraigning the accused-appellant and
his family members as accused giving rise to Complaint Case
No.1067 of 2022 under section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the DP Act.
9. On perusal of the complaint dated 24.01.2022, FIR dated
27.01.2022 and Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022, the allegations
contained in the same can be crystallized as hereunder:
i. The complainant-respondent No.2 married the accusedappellant
on 04.12.2016 and gave birth to a male child while
living in USA. Before the marriage, she was working as a
Software Consultant but after the marriage, she was asked to
quit and stay at home as a housewife.
ii. After leading a year of happy marital life, the accused-appellant
along with her other in-laws started physically and mentally
harassing her with demands of dowry in order to repay their
family loans and debts.
iii. On 13.12.2019, she came back to India to her parents’ house
and since then the accused-appellant has neither supported
her nor their child financially.
iv. The accused-appellant used to harass her whenever she used
to ask him for money for the household purposes and used to
ask for penny-wise accounts whereas he used to send lakhs of
rupees to his parents in India.
10. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the Complaint
Case, the accused-appellant filed a Criminal Petition No.4364 of
2023 under Section 482 of CrPC before the Telangana High Court
praying for quashing of the FIR No.29 of 2022 and Complaint Case
No.1067 of 2022.
11. By the impugned order dated 27.04.2023, the Telangana High
Court has refused to quash the proceedings arising out of the said
FIR and Complaint Case. It was observed by the High Court that
there were no grounds made out by the accused-appellant and on
perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was evident
that the accused-appellant has to undergo the trial to prove his
defence and the same cannot be considered to quash the
proceedings.
12. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by
the High Court of Telangana, the accused-appellant has preferred
the present appeal praying for the quashing of the FIR No.29 of
2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the Complaint Case No.1067 of 2022
arising out of the said FIR.
13. We heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent No.1-State as well as
complainant-respondent No.2. We have perused the material on
record.
14. It was argued by the learned counsel for accused-appellant
that the incidents mentioned in the FIR are general in nature and
consist of sweeping unsubstantiated and frivolous allegations
which do not fall under the definition of dowry as defined under
Section 498A of the IPC. It was further argued that the allegations
made by the complainant-respondent No.2 pertain to general wear
and tear of the marriage which are part and parcel of a matrimonial
life. Furthermore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the
accused-appellant that the complaint and the FIR are a
counterblast of the legal notice dated 11.01.2022 sent by the
accused-appellant and motivated by vengeance and malice to vex
the accused-appellant and his family. Lastly, it was argued that all
the other family members of the accused-appellant who were
arraigned as accused in the said FIR as well as the Complaint Case
have been exonerated by the High Court for the State of Telangana
in the order dated 23.04.2025 in Criminal Petition No.4025 of
2022.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainantrespondent No.2 contended that the FIR and Complaint Case preferred by her is not a counter-blast to the legal notice sent by the accused-appellant but stems from actual instances of atrocities
inflicted by the accused-appellant and his family members upon
the complainant-respondent No.2. It was further contended that
the complainant-respondent No.2 was required to maintain
complete account details in excel sheet for the perusal of the
accused-appellant and at his instance, various amounts were
transferred from her account to the account of husband i.e. the
accused-appellant and thereby he exercised full monetary control
over the financial independence of the complainant-respondent
No.2. It was also alleged that the accused-appellant used to send
money to his parents and his brothers for business purposes
whereas, complainant-respondent No.2 had to beg for money to
meet her daily needs. It was further contended that during her
pregnancy, the accused-appellant did not support or take care of
the complainant-respondent No.2 but rather, after the delivery of
the child she was pressurised to lose weight and was constantly
insulted to the extent that she requested the accused-appellant to
permit the complainant-respondent No.2 to be taken for better
postpartum care. Lastly it has also been alleged that the
complainant-respondent No.2 was incessantly harassed by the
accused-appellant and his family members with constant demands
of dowry to repay their business loans and expenses.
16. We have given our thorough consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar and the material on record.
17. In the instant case, the allegations in the FIR and the
Complaint Case are under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act.
18. Section 498A of the IPC deals with offences committed by the
husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the
wife. The said provision reads as under:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
19. Further, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act talk about the penalty
for giving or taking or demanding a dowry.
“3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.— (1) If any
person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes
or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be
less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,—
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to
the bride (without any demand having been made in that
behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this
Act;
(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to
the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in
that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the rules made under this
Act:
Provided further that where such presents are made by or
on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride,
such presents are of a customary nature and the value
thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial
status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such
presents are given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person
demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case
may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months, but which may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six
months.”
20. An offence is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC when
a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may
result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and
a fine. The Explanation under Section 498A of the IPC defines
“cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC to mean any of
the acts mentioned in clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a)
of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC states that “cruelty”
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause (a)
of the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC, states that cruelty
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical)
of the woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation of Section
498A of the IPC states that cruelty would also include harassment
of the woman where such harassment is to coerce her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
21. Further, Section 3 of the DP Act deals with the penalty for
giving or taking dowry. It states that any person who engages in
giving, taking, or abetting the exchange of dowry, shall face a
punishment of imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a
fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the
dowry, whichever is greater. Section 4 of the DP Act talks of penalty
for demanding dowry. It states that any person demanding dowry
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
guardians of a bride or bridegroom shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months,
but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend
to ten thousand rupees.
22. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and
circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR and the
Complaint Case, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash
the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out
of FIR No.29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 and the Complaint Case
No. 1067 of 2022 under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the DP Act.
23. Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing
with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases where the
allegations have to be scrutinized with greater care and
circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse
of process of law. The allegations put forth by the complainant-respondent No.2 have been considered by us. In our view, they
reflect the daily wear and tear of marriage and can, in no way, be
categorised as cruelty. The act of the accused-appellant of sending
money back to his family members cannot be misconstrued in a
way that leads to a criminal prosecution. The allegation that the
accused-appellant forced the complainant-respondent No.2 to
maintain an excel sheet of all the expenses, even if taken on the
face value, cannot come under the definition of cruelty. The
monetary and financial dominance of the accused-appellant, as
alleged by the complainant-respondent No.2, cannot qualify as an
instance of cruelty, especially in the absence of any tangible mental
or physical harm caused. The said situation is a mirror reflection
of the Indian society where men of the households often try to
dominate and take charge of the finances of the women but
criminal litigation cannot become a gateway or a tool to settle
scores and pursue personal vendettas. Furthermore, the other
allegations of the complainant-respondent No. 2 such as lack of
care on the part of the husband-the accused-appellant during
pregnancy and postpartum and constant taunts about her afterbirth
weight, if accepted prima facie, at best reflect poorly upon the
character of the accused-appellant but the same cannot amount to
cruelty so as to make him suffer through the process of litigation.
24. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by
the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other
than claiming that the husband and his family along with the
accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of
dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any
specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.
Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One
Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family
members, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to put forth
any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the
same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to
impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has
caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no
remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in
the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that
the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No.2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil
the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of
absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to
substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be
established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking
these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens
the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the
viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court
cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings.
25. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in
the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph 102
therein, where this Court observed:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
18
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
26. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial
dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against the
accused-appellant herein is made out. In fact, we find that the
allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing
hurt against the accused-appellant herein have been made with a
mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations and therefore,
the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and
particularly sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 102, extracted
above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither
expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present
19
prosecution emanating from the FIR and consequent Complaint
Case No.1067 of 2022 to continue.
27. Furthermore, at this juncture, we find it appropriate to quote
the judgment of this Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State
of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735 wherein it was observed:
“27. 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 wellrecognised
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, Appellants
2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1
have been living in different cities and have not resided in
the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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.
xxx
30. The inclusion of Section 498-A 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
20
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 498-A 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 scrutinised, 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 498-A 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.
31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman
who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498-A 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 498-A 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.”
28. In the aforementioned circumstances, keeping the judicial
dicta laid down by this Court in mind, the impugned order dated
27.04.2023 of the High Court is set aside and consequently, the
21
FIR No.29 of 2022 dated 27.01.2022 registered with Saroornagar
Women Police Station, District Rachakonda, Telangana and
consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto in Complaint
Case No.1067 of 2022 stand quashed.
29. It is needless to observe that the observations made in the
present appeal shall not come in the way of any matrimonial or
other proceedings pending between the parties which shall be
decided on their own merits and in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………..J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………..J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 19, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment