Can Distant Relatives Be Named in a Dowry 498A Case?

Tarannum Akhtar @ Soni married Md. Ikram on 18 September 2017. On 11 December 2017 she filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. It alleged dowry demands and harassment by her husband and his family.

When the file reached the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Purnea, for summons, the Magistrate found no prima facie case against the in-laws. The allegations against them, he said, were not specific. He took cognizance under Sections 498A and 323 IPC against the husband alone and issued summons. The dispute was eventually resolved, and she returned to her matrimonial home.

On 1 April 2019 she gave a fresh written complaint. It became FIR No. 248 of 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354 and 498A read with Section 34 IPC, against Md. Ikram and the in-laws. The complaint alleged that all the accused were pressurising her to buy a car as dowry. It also alleged that they threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demand was not met.

The in-laws were a niece, the mother-in-law, a sister-in-law and a brother-in-law. They asked the Patna High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR. On 13 November 2019 the High Court refused. It held that the FIR's averments prima facie disclosed an offence that the police had to investigate.

Each side had its excuses. The State of Bihar said the 2019 FIR was a fresh cause of action. According to the State, Md. Ikram had assured the Principal Judge, Purnea, that he would not harass his wife for dowry, yet the demands and threats continued. The wife said the investigation had gathered oral and documentary evidence leading to a charge-sheet against all seven accused. She also said the husband had accepted the High Court's order by not challenging it. The in-laws answered that the police should have held a preliminary inquiry, citing Lalita Kumari, and that the FIR was a revengeful repeat of the 2017 complaint.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Its reason was not the timing of the two complaints. It was the absence of a specific role for each in-law.

The Court began with why Section 498A exists. It was incorporated to prevent cruelty against a woman by her husband and in-laws by allowing rapid state intervention. The Court also observed that matrimonial litigation has grown sharply. That has produced an "increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives."

Earlier rulings supplied the warnings. Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. noted that many such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar observed that because the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, it has been used as a weapon rather than a shield. It also noted that bed-ridden grandparents and sisters living abroad for decades had been arrested. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand said that allegations of harassment against close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided "would have an entirely different complexion". Such allegations, it added, must be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP endorsed an older ruling that a complaint should be quashed where all family members had been roped into a matrimonial dispute. K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana gave the sharpest rule: the relatives of the husband "should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

That is where vague 498A allegations meet the law. In this FIR, the words "all accused" did not say who demanded the car or who made the threat. The Court said one could not ascertain the role played by each accused.

The Bench set aside the Patna High Court's order and quashed FIR No. 248 of 2019 against the four in-laws. It found the allegations "general and omnibus" and fit, at best, to be called the product of small skirmishes. It also noted that a trial ending in acquittal still leaves severe scars on the accused.

This is not a 498A judgement in favour of the husband. The husband had not appealed, so the Court expressly did not examine the allegations against him. The relief went only to the four in-laws.

• A fresh FIR did not cure the gap. The Court accepted that the two FIRs might be independent instances based on separate transactions. It still held that the new complaint failed to make specific allegations against the in-laws.
• "All accused" is not a substitute for a role. Without a specific role attributed to each appellant, prosecution would simply be an abuse of the process of law.

• Gather the paper trail first. The in-laws in this case relied on the FIR, the 2017 complaint and the Magistrate's order on it, and the High Court order. A complainant should check that the FIR states which relative did what, because the Court found its absence fatal.
• Know the forum. These in-laws first filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Patna High Court (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1492 of 2019). After it was dismissed, they appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal.
• Avoid the main mistake. Do not name every relative through a collective phrase such as "all accused". State each person's act, or the complaint risks being quashed against that person as an abuse of process.
• Do not assume the point on preliminary inquiry was settled. The in-laws argued that the police should have held a preliminary inquiry under Lalita Kumari. The Court decided the case on the omnibus nature of the allegations instead.