Supreme Court Extends S.498A IPC To Live-In Relationships Which Are 'Relationships In The Nature Of Marriage'

CONCLUSION

23. (i) Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in

relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of

marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an

intrinsic part thereof;

(ii) The “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, it

is stated for ample clarity, are those that are between two

consenting adult individuals;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). OF 2026

DR. LOKESH B.H. & ORS. Vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 784

Print Page

Supreme Court: Precaution to be taken by the court while passing order of issue process against in- laws of wife for prosecution U/S 498A of IPC

Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana   MANU/SC/0880/2018 : (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:

6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. {Para 17}

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the Accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all Accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each Accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022

Decided On: 08.02.2022

Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: Krishna Murari, J.

Citation: 2022 INSC 163, MANU/SC/0163/2022,(2022) 6 SCC 599

Print Page

Supreme Court: No FIR U/S 498A of IPC is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.

Ratio: If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 

Decided On: 03.05.2024

Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Author: Citation: 2024 INSC 369, MANU/SC/0377/2024

Print Page

Supreme Court Highlights Growing Trend Of Dowry Victims Arraigning Relatives Of Husband residing at distant place away from victim

 Insofar as Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant No. 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 and their children. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. {Para 24}

25. 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 well- recognised 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, Appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025 

Decided On: 23.04.2025

Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 562: MANU/SC/0546/2025

Print Page

Bombay HC guidelines for investigation and appreciation of evidence for the offence under S 498A of IPC

 The informant is contending that after three months of marriage all the accused persons started taunting her on the ground that she is from village and is unable to cook food. She has specifically stated that on the trifle domestic grounds she was mentally and physically harassed, however, she has not given the details except the said taunting. All the seven persons could not have given taunts at one and the same time. Further, in the entire FIR she has not stated as to why the married sister-in-law and her husband were residing in house of her husband i.e. applicant No.1. In the normal course, the married sister-in-law and her husband would reside at the place where the husband of the sister-in-law is residing. If we consider the address given by the applicants, then of course applicant Nos.5 and 6 are also residing at Aurangabad, but their house is different and in a different locality than the house of applicant Nos.1 to 4. Same is as regards applicant No.7, who is the cousin brother of applicant No.1. Informant has thereafter stated that her husband and parents-in-law were asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for getting permanency in employment of husband with Nagar Parishad. She told them that her parents are poor and unable to give the amount. Then applicant Nos.1 to 3 responded that if she is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to "physical and mental cruelty" are not given. Statement that unless she brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment. When the alleged demand is made has also not approximately stated and for how much period the said demand persisted has not been stated. She then states that she gave information about the treatment given to her and her father who had in turn given that information to their relative. All of them had come and tried to persuade accused persons, but there was no settlement. According to the informant since that date the accused persons intensified harassment. Again the details are lacking. Then she directly states that when she was in her parental house, applicant No.1 went there and abused her. Thereafter, the other accused persons i.e. applicant Nos.4 to 7 instigated applicant Nos.1 to 3 for not to allow cohabitation of the informant with applicant No.1. Threat was given that if she is unable to bring the money then she will not be allowed to stay with them and she would be killed. All these allegations are vague. When that statement was made has also not been stated. As earlier stated it is to be noted that she got married on 24.06.2022 and FIR has been lodged on 24.07.2023. That means the married life of which narration has been given is of just more than one year. Out of that three months she was treated properly and when she returned to the parental home has not been stated. Statements of the witnesses are on the same line. All the witnesses have also kept those facts vague as they are. Neither the details about the alleged cruelty have been given, nor the date on which there was a meeting and when the informant came to the parental home has been stated. The statements of the witnesses are copy paste and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons. There cannot be statement in the form of copy paste paragraph to paragraph without difference in punctuations and fonts also. Unnecessarily energy has been wasted in drawing panchanama of the house of applicant No.1 and even photographs have been taken on the mobile and then certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has been given. {Para 4}

5. We are constrained to observe that police officials are not investigating such cases in the manner they are required to. There is no sensitivity that is shown, nor proper procedure is adopted. Statements in the nature of copy paste is the example of non application of mind by the investigating officer (as he is supposed to apply his mind even while taking statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and insensitivity. They do not make inquiry to the neighbours of the matrimonial home. Statements are always recorded of the witnesses who are either relatives of the wife or neighbours where her parents are residing. Of course the lady would disclose the treatment that is given to her parents and the relatives at the first place and their statements would then be important, however, the other possibilities involved and any other piece of evidence if available is not at all considered by the investigating officers. It is not even necessary that the charge-sheet should be filed against all those persons who are named in the FIR as well as statements of witnesses. If those accused are residing at far away place, then how that accused would have been involved in the commission of the offence should be considered by the investigating officer. It is in the wisdom of the investing officer to file charge-sheet against those accused only against whom there is strong evidence. Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided.

6. In the present case, the FIR is as vague as possible and it is not disclosing the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, this is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid the unjust trial against the applicants.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3263 of 2023

Decided On: 10.01.2025

Mohd  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and R.W. Joshi, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:594-DB, MANU/MH/3509/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused involved in matrimonial offence can be permitted to accept Job Abroad?

 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the permission sought by the appellant to travel abroad to join as Cyber Security Architect with a company in Belgium should not be denied, merely on account of pendency of the aforesaid case against him. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in India for the last more than one year, still the investigation has not been completed. In case the appellant is not allowed to go abroad to join the service, as has been offered to him, his career prospects may be affected. However, we grant permission to the appellant subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant will deposit a sum of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with the Trial Court within two weeks which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and shall be renewed automatically thereafter, till either the appellant comes back or the trial is over. Specific order of the Trial Court shall be required to release that FDR;

(ii) The appellant shall furnish an undertaking before the Trial Court within two weeks that he will attend each and every hearing of the case, as and when chargesheet, if any, is filed and also attend the hearing personally in case the Court so requires; and

(iii) In case of his failure to comply with the undertaking given by him, the amount of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall stand forfeited to the State, on passing of order by the Trial Court. {Para 5}

6. The order dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the High Court stands modified to the extent mentioned above.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2025

Date of Order: 09.12.2025

A.Mohammed Zaheer Vs. The State Rep . By The Inspector Of Police and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/94504/2025

Print Page

Forensic Delay and the Duty of the Sessions Court: Judicial Control Over Missing Scientific Reports in Sessions Trials

Delay in receipt of a material scientific report can paralyse a sessions trial, weaken the truth-finding process, and undermine the constitutional expectation of speedy justice. Indian criminal procedure does not contemplate that the court should remain a silent spectator when a forensic report, especially one central to the prosecution case, is withheld or indefinitely delayed. The governing judicial approach is one of active case management: the court must insist on accountability, preserve trial momentum, and ensure that essential scientific evidence is brought on record within a reasonable time.

The doctrinal foundation

Print Page

A Shield or a Weapon? 5 Surprising Takeaways from the Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling Shivangi Bansal vs. Sahib Bansal case on s 498A of IPC

 

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Justice

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was forged with a clear and vital purpose: to serve as a legal shield for women facing cruelty in their matrimonial homes. It is a potent law, making such abuse a cognizable, non-bailable offense to ensure swift, decisive action for victims in genuine peril. Police can arrest without a warrant, and bail is difficult to secure—features designed for immediate protection.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Vague and omnibus allegations in a Section 498A FIR fail to constitute cruelty without specific instances or evidence

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 Indian Penal Code 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}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Diary No. 47072 of 2023))

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Belide Swagath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1722/2025,2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC.

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.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence U/S 498A IPC

Furthermore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1308/2024 : (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Supreme Court while considering the guilt of the husband under Section 498A IPC observed that cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC; rather it must be done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence. {Para 32}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 4785/2017

Decided On: 13.08.2025

Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 6826, MANU/DE/6021/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC: How to appreciate evidence in case of offence U/S 498A of IPC and Dowry death?

 Furthermore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1308/2024 : (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Supreme Court while considering the guilt of the husband under Section 498A IPC observed that cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC; rather it must be done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence. {Para 32}

33. In the present case, to bring in the clause of cruelty leading to the death of the woman, it may be noted that Ms. Shashi had died not because of any act of cruelty but for natural reasons, as stated by CW-1 and rightly noted by learned ASJ. Therefore, Clause (a) to the Explanation annexed to Section 498A IPC is not attracted.

34. Now, Clause (b) to Section 498A IPC needs to be examined to assess whether there are any allegations, which even prima facie make out that the deceased was subjected to harassment with a view to coerce her or persons related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property or valuable security.

35. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, MANU/SC/1309/2024 the Supreme Court while dealing with the components of Section 498A IPC and to ascertain whether the same are attracted on vague allegations raised by the wife, observed that the contents of the Complaint may be assessed to see if there is any kind of cruelty as contemplated in Clause 1 or if there is any harassment for dowry as contemplated in Clause 2 is made out. If the allegations in the FIR are found to be vague and ambiguous and lack precise allegations which are alleged after the notice of divorce, then it may be concluded that the FIR has been lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle the score with the husband and his relatives. In such a situation, the quashing of the FIR is justified.

36. Furthermore, the above observations were reiterated in the case of Digambar, (supra), that where the FIR or the Complaint even if taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the quashing of proceedings would be justified. Only stating cruelty has been committed by the Appellants, would not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC.

39. It is quite understandable that he being a father, he would have been highly traumatised on account of the untimely death of his daughter. However, it is quite evident from the first statement of the Complainant that no details of the alleged harassment of the daughter was mentioned.

41. The next statement made by the Complainant was under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein also, similar allegations were made. However, as already noted above, no specific incidents which have been detailed in this Complaint.

43. However, Petitioner has neither given any date nor given any proof of giving any money, especially when he himself has stated that he was an Auto driver and had financial constraints. Such bald assertions, in the given situation, cannot be held to be even making out a prima facie case of harassment.

44. When the Petitioner's daughter became pregnant for the second time, he brought her to his house in the 5th month as there was threat to liquidate her in case she gave birth to the second child. He brought her to his house and left her in the matrimonial home after the birth of the second child. Pertinently, the Complainant has made contradictory statements in so much as if the Respondents had threatened to kill the Petitioner's daughter on birth of a girl child, no father would leave the daughter in the matrimonial home in the face of such imminent threat.

45. It is further claimed that there was consistent demand of Rs.2 Lacs in the name of both the children or else they threatened to kill the daughter. He sold his plot at Surya Colony, Faridabad and gave Rs.1 Lakh, despite which his daughter was killed. However, no evidence has been placed on record of either the ownership or sale or of the date on which this money was given. This assumes importance as the Petitioner's daughter died within 40 days of birth of second daughter. To accept the alleged sale and payment, some cogent evidence about the alleged demands and payment should have been disclosed by the Petitioner. Such bald assertions cannot be considered to even disclose the case of harassment.

46. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sunny, brother of the deceased, Ms. Shashi was also recorded, who stated that he had gone to meet Ms. Shashi at her matrimonial home on Holi when he found her crying and her in-Laws were harassing her. He, on return to their home, informed the same to the Petitioner.

48. However, merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment. The statements of the brother, Sunny and sister, Poonam also in no way establish even prima facie that Shashi was being harassed by her in laws for meeting their demands.

49. Furthermore, in the Petitioner's Complaint as well, aside from vague assertions that there was a constant demand of money, there are no specific incidents which have been detailed in this Complaint. The amount of Rs.45- 50,000 has been stated to have been given in Chuchak at the time of birth of the daughter and cannot be termed as a demand. There was nothing on record to even remotely suggest that there was any harassment of the deceased for fulfilling their demands for money.

50. The allegations in the Complain and the statements of the witnesses reflect that essentially the Petitioner was aggrieved by the death of his daughter and believed it to be on account of cruelty meted out to her. However, the learned ASJ had concluded that the death was on account of natural reasons and discharged the Respondents No. 3 to 5 under Section 304B IPC. This Order never got challenged and cannot be re-agitated now.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 4785/2017

Decided On: 13.08.2025

Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 6826, MANU/DE/6021/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate material on record in an offence U/S 498A of IPC?

 Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [  MANU/SC/0163/2022 : (2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the Accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

{Para 13}

14. In Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. [  MANU/SC/0592/2010 : (2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1457 of 2015 and 1456 of 2015

Decided On: 31.08.2023

Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Aniruddha Bose, P.V. Sanjay Kumar and S.V. Bhatti, JJ.

Author: P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 779, MANU/SC/0950/2023.

Print Page

Allahabad HC Issues Safeguards Against S. 498A Misuse : No Arrest During 2 Months' Cooling-Off Period After FIR Registration

Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court is proposing the safeguards after taking the guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (Supra) keeping in view the growing tendency in the masses to nail the husband and all family members by a general and sweeping allegations. {Para 48}

49. Thus, It is directed that:—

(i) No arrest or police action to nab the named accused persons shall be made after lodging of the FIR or complaints without concluding the “Cooling-Period” which is two months from the lodging of the FIR or the complaint. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committe(hereinafter referred to as FWC) in the each district.

(ii) Only those cases which would be transmitted to FWC in which Section 498-A IPC along with, no injury 307 and other sections of the IPC in which the imprisonment is less than 10 years.

(iii) After lodging of the complaint or the FIR, no action should take place without concluding the “Cooling-Period” of two months. During this “Cooling-Period”, the matter may be referred to Family Welfare Committee in each districts.

(iv) Every district shall have at least one or more FWC (depending upon the geographical size and population of that district constituted under the District Legal Aid Services Authority) comprising of at least THREE MEMBERS. Its constitution and function shall be reviewed periodically by the District & Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court of that District, who shall be the Chairperson or Co-chairperson of that district at Legal Service Authority.

(v) The said FWC shall comprise of the following members:—

(a) a young mediator from the Mediation Centre of the district or young advocate having the practices up to five years or senior most student of Vth year, Government Law College or the State University or N.L.Us. having good academic track record and who is public spirited young man, OR;

(b) well acclaimed and recognized social worker of that district having clean antecedant, OR;

(c) retired judicial officers residing in or nearby district, who can devote time for the object of the proceeding OR;

(d) educated wives of senior judicial or administrative officers of the district.

(vi) The member of the FWC shall never be called as a witness.

(vii) Every complaint or application under Section 498A IPC and other allied sections mentioned above, be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee by the concerned Magistrate. After receiving the said complaint or FIR, the Committee shall summon the contesting parties along with their four senior elderly persons to have personal interaction and would try to settle down the issue/misgivings between them within a period of two months from its lodging.

The contesting parties are obliged to appear before the Committee with their four elderly persons (maximum) to have a serious deliberation between them with the aid of members of the Committee.

(viii) The Committee after having proper deliberations, would prepare a vivid report and would refer to the concerned Magistrate/police authorties to whom such complaints are being lodged after expiry of two months by inserting all factual aspects and their opinion in the matter.

(ix) Continue deliberation before the Committee, the police officers shall themselves to avoid any arrest or any coercive action pursuant to the applications or complaint against the named accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer shall continue to have a peripheral investigation into the matter namely preparing a medical report, injury report, the statements of witnesses.

(x) The said report given by the Committee shall be under the consideration of I.O. or the Magistrate on its own merit and thereafter suitable action should be taken by them as per the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure after expiry of the “Cooling-Period” of two months.

(xi) Legal Services Aid Committee shall impart such basic training as may be considered necessary to the members of Family Welfare Committee from time to time(not more than one week).

(xii) Since, this is noble work to cure abrasions in the society where tempos of the contesting parties are very high that they would melow down the heat between them and try to resolve the misgivings and misunderstanding between them. Since, this is a job for public at large, social work, they are acting on a pro bono basis or basic minimum honrarium as fixed by the District & Sessions Judge of every district.

(xiii) The investigation of such FIRs or complaint containing Section 498A IPC and other allied sections as mentioned above, shall be investigated by dynamic Investigating Officers whose integrity is certified after specialized training not less than one week to handle and investigate such matrimonal cases with utmost sincerity and transparancy.

(xiv) When settlement is reached between the parties, it would be open for the District & Sessions Judge and other senior judicial officers nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case.

50. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that after lodging of the F.I.R. or the complaint case without exhausting the “Cooling-Period” of two months, no arrest or any coercive action shall be taken against the husband or his family members in order to derail the proceedings before the Family Welfare Committee.

 In the High Court of Allahabad

(Before Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

Criminal Revision No. - 1126 of 2022

Mukesh Bansal Vs  State of U.P. and Another 

Decided on June 13, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine All 395 : (2022) 4 All LJ 452 : (2022) 120 ACC 441 : 2022 Cri LJ 2841 : (2022) 3 HLR 399 : ILR (2022) 6 All 1112

Print Page

Supreme Court Endorses Allahabad HC Guidelines :No Arrest In 498A FIRs For 2 Months; Refer Cases To Family Welfare Committees

The guidelines framed by the High Court of Allahabad in the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022 vide paras 32 to 38, with regard to ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A, IPC shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before B.R. Gavai, C.J. and Augustine George Masih, J.)

Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023

Shivangi Bansal  Vs  Sahib Bansal 

Decided on July 22, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494.

Print Page

Supreme Court Acquits Husband in Dowry Death Case: Holds Prosecution Failed to Prove Cruelty or Harassment “Soon Before Death,” Presumption Under Section 113-B Evidence Act Not Applicable Due to Contradictory Testimonies

In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated that police had recorded his statements on 3rd April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which were marked as exhibits DG and DH, respectively. He accepted that the allegation that the Accused used to maltreat his sister on account of insufficient dowry given in the marriage and having brought broken furniture is not found in both the police statements. He also stated that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi does not find place in both statements. Therefore, the version of PW-7 in his examination-in-chief about the demands of dowry is a significant and relevant omission. Hence, this amounts to a contradiction. The public prosecutor claimed that the demand for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned in his third statement, which was recorded on 23rd June 1998. The third statement, recorded belatedly, obviously appears to be an afterthought. As regards his statement that the Accused used to give a beating to his sister, it seems that he got this information when he visited the matrimonial home of his sister three months after the marriage. It is a very vague allegation. Moreover, the witness has not stated that this was disclosed to him by his deceased sister. Assuming that what he has said is correct, this incident of beating must have taken place between 25th June 1996 till end of September 1996. Therefore, this incident did not happen soon before the death. It is not his case that when the deceased allegedly visited his house nine to ten days before the incident, she complained about any cruelty or any harassment. Thus, none of the three statements of the witnesses contain any specific instances of cruelty or harassment.

{Para 16}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2014

Decided On: 31.01.2025

Karan Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka,  and Ujjal Bhuyan, , JJ.

Author:Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

 Citation: 2025 INSC 133,MANU/SC/0132/2025.

Print Page

The Non-Collection of Call Detail Records: Implications for Testimony in Legal Proceedings

 The non-collection of Call Detail Records (CDR) can significantly impact the testimony of the deceased's parents in a case where the prosecution relies on telephonic communication as the primary evidence of ill-treatment for the following reasons:

1. Burden of Proof

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of CDR, it becomes challenging to substantiate the claims made by the deceased's parents regarding telephonic communication. 

 2. Materiality of CDR

Print Page

What is distinction between concept of cruelty U/S 498A of IPC and Under Civil law or Matrimonial law?

 C. Veerudu Vs. State Of A.P.(1989) CR. L.J. NOC 52(A.P.)

• S. 498 A The sole constituent of offence u/s 498 A is cruelty which means 'wilful conduct'. The Word wilful contemplates obstinate and deliberate brhaviour on part of offender for it to amount to cruelty. Thus 'Mensrea' is an esssential ingredient of the offence.
• The principles are that the standard of proof of cruelty are higher in degree in criminal law than in civil law under the matrimonial causes.
• The intention or mensrea on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not a necessary element of cruelty in civil law for martimonial causes while it is an essential element in criminal law.
• It is enough if crulety is proved by preponderance of probabilities in civil law while in criminal trials the coduct of cruelty has to be proved beyond all resonable doubt.
• It is immaterial in civil law whether respondent's conduct was aimed at the other spouse or is due to unwarranted indifference attributable perhaps to selfishness or laziness while it is very much material in criminal proceeding and for relief of matrimonial causes in civil law the conduct of spouse need not necessarily result in danger to life, limb or health but a reasonable apprehension of such danger is enough, whereas section 498 A contemplates such a conduct besides being wilful to result in the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

[ In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 756 of 1987. ] 1

VEERULU V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, decided on Friday, June 10, 1988.  Judge(s) : BHASKARA RAO. Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Laws Intended To Protect Women From Cruelty & Dowry Harassment Shouldn't Be Misused To Settle Personal Scores

 Criminal law should not be used as a tool for

harassment or vendetta. The allegations in a criminal

complaint must be scrutinized with care to ensure

that they disclose a prima facie case before subjecting

individuals to the rigors of a criminal trial. The cases

involving allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC

and the DP Act often require a careful and cautious

approach to prevent misuse of the law. While the

provisions are intended to protect women from

cruelty and dowry harassment, they should not be

used to settle personal scores or pursue ulterior

motives. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.1754/2024)

P.V. KRISHNABHAT & ANR Vs  THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA & ORS.

Dated: JANUARY 15, 2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in offence Under S 498A of IPC if there was demand of money without harassment for getting that money?

  Informant has thereafter stated that her husband and

parents-in-law were asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

for getting permanency in employment of husband with Nagar

Parishad. She told them that her parents are poor and unable to

give the amount. Then applicant Nos.1 to 3 responded that if she

is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for

cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and

physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to “physical

and mental cruelty” are not given. Statement that unless she

brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without

any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment.

When the alleged demand is made has also not approximately

stated and for how much period the said demand persisted has

not been stated. She then states that she gave information about

the treatment given to her and her father who had in turn given

that information to their relative. All of them had come and tried

to persuade accused persons, but there was no settlement.

According to the informant since that date the accused persons

intensified harassment. Again the details are lacking. Then she

directly states that when she was in her parental house,

applicant No.1 went there and abused her. Thereafter, the other

accused persons i.e. applicant Nos.4 to 7 instigated applicant

Nos.1 to 3 for not to allow cohabitation of the informant with

applicant No.1. Threat was given that if she is unable to bring

the money then she will not be allowed to stay with them and she

would be killed. All these allegations are vague. When that

statement was made has also not been stated. As earlier stated it

is to be noted that she got married on 24.06.2022 and FIR has

been lodged on 24.07.2023. That means the married life of which

narration has been given is of just more than one year. Out of

that three months she was treated properly and when she

returned to the parental home has not been stated. Statements

of the witnesses are on the same line. All the witnesses have also

kept those facts vague as they are. Neither the details about the

alleged cruelty have been given, nor the date on which there was

a meeting and when the informant came to the parental home

has been stated. The statements of the witnesses are copy paste

and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum

use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons.

There cannot be statement in the form of copy paste paragraph to paragraph without difference in punctuations and fonts also.

Unnecessarily energy has been wasted in drawing panchanama of the house of applicant No.1 and even photographs have been

taken on the mobile and then certificate under Section 65-B of

Indian Evidence Act has been given. {Para 4}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3263 OF 2023

Mohammad Muddassar Vs The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

 ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 JANUARY 2025

ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:594-DB.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page