Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy

General Allegations Insufficient for Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Husband’s Relatives Under Section 498-A IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR against the relatives of a husband, citing the lack of specific allegations necessary to constitute an offense under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, emphasized the need for clear and specific allegations in cases of dowry harassment.

The crux of this judgement lies in the interpretation of Section 498-A IPC, which pertains to dowry-related offenses. The Court underscored that general and nonspecific allegations are inadequate to proceed against the husband’s relatives.

The appellants, relatives of the husband, appealed against the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which refused to quash the FIR lodged against them under various sections including 498-A IPC. The FIR accused them of harassment and dowry demands. The appellants argued that these were general allegations made to harass them.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the allegations, observing a lack of specific details against each appellant. Justice Gavai noted, “Apart from the general and bald allegations, there is not even a whisper as to how the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of IPC are made out against the present appellants.” The Court also took into account a failed settlement agreement between the husband and the wife, which did not materialize, leading to the continuation of legal proceedings.

Concluding the assessment, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR against the appellants. However, it was clarified that the proceedings against the husband would continue separately. This landmark judgement has implications on how courts interpret allegations in dowry-related cases, particularly against relatives of the husband.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2024

Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and Others vs The State of U.P. and Others

Latest Legal News