2025 INSC 671 SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 1 of 18

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019]

RAJESH CHADDHA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These Appeals by special leave are directed against Order

dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal

Revision No. 612/2004 filed against the judgment and order dt.

18.11.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow

[hereinafter “Sessions Court”] whereby the Criminal Appeal No.

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 2 of 18

88/2004 filed by the Appellant was dismissed and the conviction

of the Appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter “IPC” & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 [hereinafter “DP Act, 1961”] vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow [hereinafter

“Magistrate”] was upheld. The Order dt. 28.11.2018 dismissing

the recall application against the said Order dt.14.11.2018 is also

under challenge before this Court.

3. The captioned Appeal arises out of Case Crime No.

60/1999 lodged by the PS Women Police Station, Lucknow under

Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,

1961, on the basis of a Complaint dt. 20.12.1999 filed by the

Complainant wife, against the Appellant husband and her in-laws

alleging mental and physical torture for not bringing enough

dowry. The factual conspectus in brief is as under:

3.1 The marriage of the Appellant with the Complainant, Ms.

Mala Chaddha, had taken place on 12.02.1997. The Appellant

resided separately with the Complainant wife only for a period of

12 days, from 08.09.1998 to 20.09.1998.

3.2 The Complainant who was working as a teacher with St.

Thomas School prior to her marriage had allegedly resigned from

her job on the advice of the Appellant husband; and her family

had spent more than Rs. 5 lakhs towards the wedding. However,

the Appellant, her in-laws, and the brother-in-law (Jeth) were

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 3 of 18

constantly unhappy & dissatisfied, and subjected her to constant

taunts, and inflicted upon her physical and mental atrocities. It is

alleged that the Appellant husband and her in-laws forced the

Complainant to consume milk mixed with some

narcotic/alcoholic substances, and forced upon her to attend

parties with his friends, where alcohol was served, and if the

Complainant refused, the Appellant and his family would

humiliate her. Allegedly, the parents-in-laws, in conspiracy with

the Appellant, had planned to kill her, and had kept her in a safe

house, separately from the matrimonial home, the keys for which

were with the parents-in-law. On 23.09.1998, when the father of

the Complainant was invited to the matrimonial house, the

Appellant and her in-laws had allegedly assaulted the

Complainant with kicks and punches in front of her father. The

Appellant and his family purportedly expelled the Complainant,

while she was pregnant. Thereafter, on 10.02.1998, the Appellant

and her family again while ousting her out of the house, allegedly

gave her a strong push, and as a result she fell down, and owing

to the injury, had suffered a miscarriage. It is the case of the

Complainant in the FIR that she made several requests for

reconciliation including efforts through Family Counselling

Centre till 16.12.1999, but it has been in vain, and as a

consequence she registered the Complaint dt. 20.12.1999 against

the Appellant and his family.

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 4 of 18

3.3 In her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”), before the Magistrate, the

Complainant reiterated the allegations in the FIR and stated for

the first time that she was forced by the Appellant and his family

to join service in St. Fidelis School, Aliganj, Lucknow and the in-

laws would snatch her entire month’s salary, which was only Rs.

4,000/- at the time. On 23.09.1998, when the Appellant raised a

demand of Rs. 2 Lacs, and her parents were unable to arrange the

money, the Appellant and the in-laws allegedly beat her up. The

Complainant asserts that she only took with her four gold bangles

and one ring, while leaving her matrimonial home in July 1997

and rest all jewellery and list of items were with the Appellant or

his family.

3.4 The Complainant and her father were examined as PW-1

and PW-2, respectively. PW-2, has fully supported the testimony

of PW-1, and in both the statements, the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as

dowry by the in-laws & the mental and physical atrocities

inflicted on her, is persistent. However, both the witnesses could

not substantiate the allegations of hurt or physical assault. The

Trial Court vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004, upon duly considering

the testimony of both the witnesses and the material on record,

observed that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable

doubt, the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 34

IPC, rendering the following opinion:

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 5 of 18

“It is evident from perusal of the

evidence available on record that both

the fact witnesses have not made it

clear in their evidence that any simple

hurt was caused to the Complainant as

a result of the physical assault by

accused persons. Even if it is believed

that the accused committed mar-pit

with the Complainant, I think had the

Complainant been subjected to

physical assault by all the accused

persons by kicks and punches, yet she

would have sustained serious injuries

and in such a situation, I am of the

opinion that medical examination of

the Complainant must have been done

so as to prove that she has sustained

injuries due to the assault by accused

persons, but it appears from the

perusal of the record that the

prosecution did not attempted to

adduce any such evidence before the

court as any medical certificate/injury

report with regard to the injuries of the

Complainant has not been filed. In this

context, the evidence of the

complainant is the only strong

evidence regarding the injuries, as she

was subjected to physical assault by

the accused persons but it appears

from perusal of the testimony of the

witness that she has nowhere

mentioned in her statement that she

sustained injuries on such and such

part of her body due to the physical

assault committed by accused persons.

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 6 of 18

Besides, it is also evident from record

that the prosecution has further stated

that the complainant had miscarriage

due to physical assault committed by

accused persons. In my opinion, if such

an incident had actually taken place,

the complainant was required to get

her medical examination done so as to

prove that the miscarriage took place

due to physical assault committed by

the accused persons as a miscarriage

is not a normal/ordinary course of

events but it is clear from perusal of

record that prosecution has not

adduced any cogent evidence with

regard to the miscarriage. Therefore,

the allegation of miscarriage due to

physical assault proves to be

concocted story. In light of the

foregoing discussion, I reach the

conclusion that the prosecution has

failed to prove the allegation of

physical assault of the complainant

and resultant simple hurt beyond

reasonable doubt.”

3.5 The Trial Court vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004, observed

that although the prosecution had failed to prove its case against

the Appellant & the co-accused persons, for offences under

Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC; it had proved beyond

reasonable doubt, the case under Section 498A IPC and Section 4

of the D.P. Act, 1961 against the Appellant alone. The Trial Court

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 7 of 18

acquitted the Appellant for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 and

Section 506 IPC and convicted him for offences under Section

498A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the

Trial Court sentenced the Appellant as under:

Offence(s) under

Section

Period of

Sentence

Fine imposed

498A IPC, 1860 2 years RI Rs. 5000/-

4 DP Act, 1961 1 year RI Rs. 2000/-

3.6 The Criminal Appeal No. 88/2024 preferred by the

Appellant against the Judgment dt. 28.08.2024 passed by the

Magistrate, was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,

vide its Judgment/Final Order dt. 18.11.2004 and the conviction

under Section 498A of IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 &

the quantum of sentence qua the Appellant was upheld.

3.7 The Appellant had preferred a Criminal Revision No.

612/2004 against the Judgment/Final Order dt. 18.11.2004 before

the High Court, which has been dismissed vide Impugned

Judgement and Final Order dt. 14.11.2018. The High Court within

its powers of revision, upheld the conviction of the Appellant

under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961

with the observation that there was no error of law or perversity

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 8 of 18

in the orders passed by the lower courts. The said portion is

reproduced as under:

“I have perused the judgment and

orders dated 18.112004 and

28.08.2004, passed by learned courts

below. The learned courts below have

considered all aspects of the matter in

detail and I do not find any error of law

or perversity in the aforesaid

impugned judgment and orders. The

instant revision lacks merit, and

deserves to be dismissed.”

3.8 Further, vide Order dt. 28.11.2018, passed by the High

Court, the Application seeking recall of the Impugned Order

dt.14.11.2018 was also rejected at the threshold, as being

misconceived in law.

4. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for

the Appellant that the Impugned Judgment dt. 14.11.2018 passed

by the High Court, suffers from non-application of mind, and non-

consideration of the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the

Appellant submitted that the allegations under Section 498A IPC

and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, were unsustainable qua the

Appellant, as there is no independent evidence on behalf of the

prosecution, and the entire case hinges upon the deposition of the

father of the Complainant and Complainant herself. It was argued

that the Complainant who cohabited with the Appellant only for

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 9 of 18

a period of about a year, had made bald allegations without any

specifics of date, time or event, in the FIR in Case Crime No.

60/1999, which has only been registered as a counter-blast to the

Divorce Petition preferred by the Appellant. It is brought to our

notice that the divorce decree in lieu of their marriage, has already

been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the

Complainant, and hence has attained finality.

5. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the

Appellant, that the High Court passed the Impugned Order in

absence of representation of a Counsel on behalf of the Appellant,

which is not permissible. Learned Counsel for the Appellant

submitted that in the absence of a Counsel for the Appellant, the

High Court could have appointed an amicus-curiae to represent

the case of the Appellant, rather than passing an adversarial order

against him.

6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the State

that to establish cruelty within the threshold of Section 498A, the

evidence of the relatives of the Complainant wife cannot be

brushed aside. The deposition of the father of the Complainant

does establish that the Complainant was time and again harassed,

and beaten her up for not bringing enough dowry. Reliance was

placed on Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 10 of 18

Maharashtra

1

, Arun Vyas & Anr. v. Anita Vyas

2

, Surendran v.

State of Kerala

3

.

ANALYSIS

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties

and having perused the record, the question remains whether the

High Court vide Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 whilst exercising

its revisionary jurisdiction, was correct in upholding the

conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4

D.P. Act, 1961. In that respect, it is prudent to examine the

statutory provisions, which are as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of

husband of a woman subjecting her to

cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband

or the relative of the husband of a

woman, subjects such woman to

cruelty shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years and shall also be

liable to fine. Explanation.— For the

purpose of this section, “cruelty”

means— (a) any wilful conduct which

is of such a nature as is likely to drive

the woman to commit suicide or to

cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health (whether mental or

physical) of the woman; or (b)

1

(2016) 10 SCC 537

2

(1999) 4 SCC 690

3

(2022) 15 SCC 273

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 11 of 18

harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing

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.”

3. Penalty for giving or taking

dowry.— (1) If any person, after the

commencement of this Act, gives or

takes or abets the giving or taking of

dowry, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than five years, and with

fine which shall not be less than fifteen

thousand rupees or the amount of the

value of such dowry, whichever is

more. Provided that the Court may, for

adequate and special reasons to be

recorded in the judgment, impose a

sentence of imprisonment for a term of

less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-

section (1) shall apply to, or in relation

to,— (a) presents which are given at

the time of a marriage to the bride

without any demand having been made

in that behalf: Page 12 of 26 Provided

that such presents are entered in a list

maintained in accordance with the

rules made under this Act; (b) presents

which are given at the time of a

marriage to the bridegroom without

any demand having been made in that

behalf: Provided that such presents are

entered in a list maintained in

accordance with the rules made under

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 12 of 18

this Act: Provided further that where

such presents are made by or on behalf

of the bride or any person related to

the bride, such presents are of a

customary nature and the value thereof

is not excessive having regard to the

financial status of the person by whom,

or on whose behalf, such presents are

given.

4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If

any person demands, directly or

indirectly, from the parents or other

relatives or guardian of a bride or

bridegroom, as the case may be, any

dowry, he shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than six months, but which

may extend to two years and with fine

which may extend to ten thousand

rupees: Provided that the Court may,

for adequate and special reasons to be

mentioned in the judgment, impose a

sentence of imprisonment for a term of

less than six months.”

8. At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section

498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may

cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is

inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment

caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or

impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of

Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a

direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 13 of 18

husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of

the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.

Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin

air.

9. In the present case, the allegations made by the

Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material

particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that

Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the

Complainant has not given any specific details or described any

particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and

the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on

multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted from the

matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of

her father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with

dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the

Appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has

not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the

alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant

suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the Appellant and

her family who pushed her out of the house; however, no medical

document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was

produced to substantiate the allegations.

10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find that apart

from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 14 of 18

substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty

within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P.

Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the

learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are of the considered view

that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of

hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms

of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial

Court has rightly held that evidence of the Complainant is the

only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts

of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons,

and that there was no medical examination conducted by the

Complainant, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a

consequence of the physical assault.

11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to the

material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the co-

accused parents-in-law for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 &

Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that the Trial Court had

passed the order of conviction of the Appellant under Section

498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the

possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1

corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. Although one cannot

deny the emotional or mental torture that the Complainant may

have undergone in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible

view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 15 of 18

individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961,

especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family

members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot

ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the

Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In consideration

thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited with the

Appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR

registered by the Complainant was not genuine.

12. In respect thereof, the High Court while exercising its

revisionary jurisdiction ought to have examined the correctness

of decision of the Trial Court in light of the material on record,

which reveals nothing incriminatory against the Appellant to

sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the

D.P. Act, 1961. Although we do not agree with the submission on

behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018

was passed in absentia, however the High Court was well within

its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the

proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all

certainty, it could have saved 6 years’ worth of time for the

Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of

today.

13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed

with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 16 of 18

Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped

in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant

relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused,

in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every

relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the

allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family

members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective

legislation. The observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the

case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana

& Anr.

4

appropriately encapsulates this essence as under:

“25. 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

4

(2025) 3 SCC 735

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 17 of 18

unnecessary harassment of innocent

family members. In the present case,

appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the

members of the family of appellant

No.1 have been living in different cities

and have not resided in the

matrimonial house of appellant No.1

and respondent No.2 herein. Hence,

they cannot be dragged into criminal

prosecution and the same would be an

abuse of the process of the law in the

absence of specific allegations made

against each of them.”

14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the

parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific

instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections,

without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens

the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the

viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the

missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of

invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we

are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been

dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any

further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an

abuse of process of law.

15. We accordingly allow the Appeals and the Order

dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal

Revision No. 612/2004 convicting the Appellant under Section

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 18 of 18

498A of IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, is set aside and the

Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

……………………………………J.

[B. V. NAGARATHNA]

……………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi

May 13, 2025.