The High Court held that the mere demand of dowry is not an offence under Section 498A of the IPC and a simpliciter allegation of intimidation cannot be said to constitute harassment.

The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the Petitioners, who were distant relatives of the husband, in a case filed under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC. The Court held that while it was alleged that the Petitioners threatened the wife to break the nuptial ties when they made the alleged demands, it did not meet the threshold of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A IPC.

A Single Bench held, “Mere demand of dowry is not an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, and in the current circumstances, a simpliciter allegation of intimidation cannot be said to constitute as harassment, especially when it is the case of the complainant that the petitioners had tried to justify the same as an investment.”

Brief Facts

The Petitioners had filed a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered a based on a complaint made by the wife. The wife alleged that the Petitioners had set up her arranged marriage despite knowing that the husband and his parents were alcoholics and they had been looking for a match to satisfy their greed. The wife further alleged dowry-related harassment, including demands for property transfer and expensive gifts, leading to her return to her maternal home.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court referred to the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) wherein the Supreme Court cautioned against the tendency of implicating the husband and all his closer relations in cases relating to offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Similarly, the Court also referred to the decision in Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court held that Courts should consider if the case is that of over-implication when the implicated relatives are not residing in the same house as the victim. It was noted that “it is incumbent on the Court to ascertain whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or if it is an exaggerated version solely to implicate the accused persons.”

In the present case, the Bench noted that it was alleged that the Petitioners had sat down with the wife and told her that they expected her family to buy a property in the name of the husband (Petitioners’ nephew) or transfer the flat in her father’s name to the name of the husband. It was also alleged that they intimidated her and justified the demand as an investment.

The Court remarked that the Petitioners never shared a residence with the wife and held, “The allegations against the petitioners, which have been levelled without any cogent supporting material, therefore, seem to be an exaggeration.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In view of the above, FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.”

The Bench also clarified, “At this juncture, this Court considers it apposite to issue a note of caution. This Court is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry, due to which, numerous victims are subjected to unspeakable conduct and harassment. It is not the intention of this Court to imply that manipulation and coercion for dowry by hanging sword of breaking nuptial ties on the victim cannot constitute as harassment.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.