The Delhi High Court has upheld the discharge of a woman’s husband and in-laws from charges under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that the mere fact that the deceased was seen crying by her siblings could not, by itself, establish a case of dowry harassment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the allegations were vague, lacked specific incidents, and failed to disclose the offence.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations that the deceased was subjected to harassment and demands for dowry following her marriage in December 2010. It was claimed that her family spent ₹4 lakh on the wedding and that subsequent demands were made for a gold bracelet, a motorcycle, and cash. The woman, who had two daughters, died on March 31, 2014.
An FIR was registered in April 2014 under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge later discharged the accused under Section 304B after the post-mortem attributed the cause of death to pneumonia, a natural cause, and remanded the case for trial under Sections 498A/34 IPC. In June 2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the accused from these charges as well, citing lack of specific evidence. The order was upheld in revision in April 2017.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner argued that:
- At the stage of framing charges, only the prosecution’s material is to be considered.
- Statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. from family members contained allegations of harassment and dowry demands.
- Medical aspects, including frothing from the mouth and nostrils and semi-solid contents in the stomach, were ignored.
- Even if death was due to pneumonia, the accused failed to provide adequate treatment.
It was also contended that the courts below failed to give due weight to specific allegations in recorded statements and to consider legal precedents requiring charges to be framed where prima facie material exists.
Respondents’ Stand
The respondents denied all allegations, arguing that the petition was time-barred and filed with ulterior motives.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Bansal Krishna noted that Section 498A IPC requires either wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or harassment for unlawful dowry demands. The death being due to pneumonia meant Clause (a) of the section’s Explanation was not applicable.
For Clause (b), the court found that the allegations were general, without dates, corroborative proof, or specific incidents. The judge pointed out contradictions between initial and later statements and held that customary gifts like Chuchak could not be treated as dowry demands.
The court highlighted that the statements of the deceased’s brother and sister, who said they saw her crying on Holi, did not establish harassment for dowry:
“Merely because the deceased was crying, cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.”
The court cited Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat (2025) 2 SCC 116, Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024), and Digambar to emphasise that vague allegations lacking specific incidents cannot constitute an offence under Section 498A.
Finding no prima facie case, the High Court dismissed the petition:
“There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby, dismissed.”
