"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News