Wife filed criminal case against brother-in-law alleging that her veins burst due to harassment for dowry; SC says allegations are vague and cancels 498A criminal case

The Supreme Court, in its judgement (2025 INSC 1152), provided relief to Mr. Kumar by quashing the 498A charge and the related FIR (no. 347 of 2023) filed against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police, which was based on the allegations made by his brother’s wife.

This FIR was lodged by Smt. Garg, against her husband, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law, under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on November 9, 2023.

A brief overview of the marriage and the ensuing legal issues

To summarise, the couple tied the knot on May 1, 2014. However, just a few months into their marriage, due to ongoing marital issues, she left her matrimonial home and returned to her parent’s house. Following this, both parties began several matrimonial legal actions against one another.


Upon reviewing the FIR dated November 9, 2023 filed by the wife, the allegations can be summarized as follows:

1. The wife claims that within ten days of marriage, she started facing harassment for dowry.
2. The brother-in-law along with the husband and mother-in-law, allegedly coerced her to write a consent letter, which was signed by her uncle and four other relatives, after which she was permitted to live at her matrimonial home.
3. On December 10, 2022, due to repeated dowry-related harassment , a vein in her brain burst, leading to paralysis in her right hand and right leg, due to which she had to undertake physiotherapy.

The Supreme Court said that the issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the present case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was right in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.347 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 under Section 323 and 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act, as against the appellant herein.

Also read: Wife filed criminal cases against husband’s parents under Section 498A for instigating their son to demand dowry from her; she lost case in SC for this reason

Supreme Court analyses the FIR

The Supreme Court said that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the wife are vague and omnibus.

The Supreme Court said: “Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused/appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand for dowry, the complainant/respondent No.2 (wife) has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.”

The Supreme Court said that she has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars.

The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. Furthermore, the complainant/respondent No.2 (wife) has failed to impress the Court as to how the alleged harassment has any proximate relationship to the said injury and nerve damage that she sustained, so as to punish her in-laws under Section 323 IPC.”

The Supreme Court also observed that there is no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused/appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of hurt as defined under Section 319 IPC.

Furthermore, merely stating that the brother-in-law has mentally harassed the wife with respect to a demand for dowry does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC specially in absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations.

The Supreme Court said that the term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances.

Also read: Vague, general allegations can’t sustain 498A case, says Calcutta High Court; 22-year fight ends in relief for husband’s mother, brother

The Supreme Court said: “The tendency of invoking the aforesaid provisions, without mentioning any specific detail, weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the probability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in the FIR which is the basic premise for invoking the criminal machinery of the State.”

The Supreme Court said that in such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to initiate criminal proceedings against them.

The Supreme Court said: “Therefore, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.”

The Supreme Court said that courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law.

Supreme Court refers to related case law

Case law cited: State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”)

The Supreme Court referred to the Bhajan Lal case and said that on a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial tests, they find that none of the offences alleged against the accused/ appellant (brother-in-law) herein is made out.

The Supreme Court said: “In fact, we find that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt against the accused/appellant herein are vague and general in nature and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal squarely applies to the facts of this case. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution emanating from the FIR to continue.”

Case law cited: Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Bihar, (2025) 3 SCC 735

Supreme Court judgement

The Supreme Court said:

• In the aforementioned facts of the case and keeping the judicial dicta rendered by this Court in mind, we find that the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 of the Allahabad High Court ought to be set aside and is set aside.
• Consequently, FIR No.347 of 2023 dated 09.11.2023 and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed, only qua the accused/appellant herein.
• It is needless to observe that the observations made in the present appeal shall not come in the way of any other proceedings pending between the parties which shall be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.