Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana

2024 INSC 953

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024 (number blank in the official copy)
Decided: 10 December 2024
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (judgment by B.V. Nagarathna, J.)
Citation: 2024 INSC 953
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A and its Explanation (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, ss. 85 and 86)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, ss. 3 and 4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Meaning of cruelty: Explanation clauses (a) and (b) · Vague and omnibus allegations against husband's relatives · Quashing under CrPC s. 482

The case, in the Court's words

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, the only question that arises for our consideration is whether FIR No.82 of 2022, dated 01.02.2022, lodged against the appellants herein should be quashed. [para 10]

Held

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). [para 15]
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. [para 15]
A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. [para 18]
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. [para 25]
The inclusion of Section 498A of the 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 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 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. [para 28]
We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. [...] 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. [para 29]

Result

We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16.02.2022 in Criminal Petition No.1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC. [para 33]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: followed in Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 562), which quotes its paragraphs on omnibus allegations against relatives, and cited in Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 962) and Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 784).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-85-86/03 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.