Ambiguous Allegations Does not Attract Offence u/S 498A of IPC


July 02, 2018

Case name: Guddi Kumari & Anr. v. State of Bihar


In this case, the applicants had filed application for quashing criminal proceeding initiated against them under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The applicants in the case were sister-in-law and her husband of the complainant wife in question.

The Complainant alleged that that immediately after the marriage, the family members including the husband started demanding dowry and harassing the complainant.

In view of the examination of witness, the High Court of Patna noted that specific allegations have been made with regard to demand of dowry on the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law and as far as the present applicants were concerned, only a general statement in the last paragraph of the complaint was made to say that Guddi Kumari also used to harass her by uttering words and tried to snatch her purse one day. However, no specific overt act is attributed to applicant no. 2.

That while accepting the application to quash the FIR against the applicants, the Court observed that both the present applicants were not even staying along with the complainant.

It was further noted that only omnibus general allegations have been made in the matter of demand of dowry against all the family members which include the present applicants also who are said to be living separately and not along with the complainant.

The High Court to arrive at its verdict made reference to catena of judgments[1] to hold that no case was made out for proceeding with the prosecution of the present applicants based on the general and omnibus allegations made against the present applicants.

The entire case can be accessed here.

Related Posts

Important Judgments on Section 498A of IPC

Note on SC’s Directions on Misuse of Section 498A of IPC

[1] Taramani Parekh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 11 SCC 260], Amit Kumar vs. Ramesh Chandra [(2012) 9 SCC 460], Kansraj vs. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207], Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 10 SCC 741]