Quashes False 498A: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Advocate Om Saran Gupta, quashing a decade-old false 498A and 406 FIR filed by his alleged second wife. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna called it a clear abuse of law meant for protection, not persecution.
Delhi High Court Quashes False 498A: In a major victory against the misuse of dowry laws, the Delhi High Court has quashed a false FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC filed against a 66-year-old advocate, calling it a “manifest abuse of the process of law.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while pronouncing the verdict in Om Saran Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that vague allegations of cruelty, fabricated marriage certificates, and unsubstantiated claims of dowry cannot sustain a criminal trial. The Court noted that the complainant had concealed her subsisting marriage at the time of the alleged second marriage, terming the prosecution a clear case of fraud and legal harassment aimed at extortion.
Facts of the Case
Background: Om Saran Gupta, a practicing advocate aged 66 years, lived in South Delhi with his wife Sholi Gupta, two sons and a daughter. Around 2010, he was approached by Nishi, who sought legal advice in her divorce case against her first husband Jitender Jaidka.
After obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree in 2010, Nishi continued living with her former husband. Meanwhile, she developed acquaintance with Om Saran Gupta and later claimed to have “married” him on 27 August 2007, three years before her own divorce.
In 2014, Nishi lodged multiple complaints; first alleging rape and fraud and then filing a dowry-harassment complaint at the CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, naming Om Saran Gupta and his two sons.
She claimed:
- Her parents gave dowry “to their capacity” at the alleged Arya Samaj marriage.
- Gupta and his sons demanded more money and misappropriated her jewelry worth ₹ 40 lakhs.
- They threatened to release “intimate videos” online and forced her to accept cheques of ₹ 40 lakhs that later bounced.
These allegations culminated in FIR at P.S. Vikas Puri under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
Contradictions & Fraud Uncovered:
- The Arya Samaj marriage certificate (25 Dec 2007) was unsigned, undated and lacked witnesses clearly fabricated.
- The complainant’s first marriage was legally dissolved only on 7 Aug 2010, proving that any 2007 marriage was void ab initio under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- She had already filed a Section 138 NI Act case using the same cheques; the court had acquitted Gupta in 2020, holding that no entrustment or misappropriation existed.
- The High Court noted that Nishi concealed material facts from both police and court, amounting to fraud and manipulation of legal process.
Lower-Court Proceedings:
- The sons of Om Saran Gupta, Siddharth Gupta and Ashish Gupta, were discharged in 2023 by the Mahila Court, Dwarka.
- Om Saran Gupta alone remained as petitioner under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet and summoning order.
- He argued that:
- No legal marriage ever existed; thus, Section 498A cannot apply.
- The complainant had fabricated documents and used criminal proceedings to extort money.
- Courts cannot allow “social-weaponization” of dowry laws against innocent men.
The Court’s Investigation: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the entire record, including:
- The Family-Court Judgment (5 May 2022) declaring the alleged marriage null and void.
- The acquittal order (20 July 2020) in the cheque-bounce case disproving the jewellery claim.
- Bank records and witness statements showing absence of any entrustment or financial misappropriation.
The Court found that the FIR’s allegations were “vague, general and omnibus in nature”, with no specific incidents, witnesses or documentary proof, and hence failed to make out any offence under Sections 498A or 406 IPC.
Court’s Findings
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court delivered a strongly reasoned judgment, dismantling the false allegations and reaffirming that criminal law cannot be a weapon of vengeance. The Court began by addressing the central question “whether a 498A case can survive when the alleged marriage itself is void ab initio”.
Justice Krishna observed:
“The entire foundation of the complaint rests upon the alleged marriage of 27.08.2007 between Nishi and the petitioner. However, it stands admitted that her previous marriage was dissolved only in 2010. Moreover, the Family Court has declared this marriage null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”
The Court noted that even though Section 498A may cover relationships that appear “in the color of marriage,” it cannot protect a relationship built on fraud or suppression:
“The complainant cannot take advantage of her own concealment. The law protects victims of cruelty, not those who manufacture cruelty to misuse the law.”
The Court meticulously analyzed each allegation and found no material evidence to support claims of cruelty, dowry demand, or harassment:
“The FIR merely asserts that dowry was given ‘to their capacity,’ without specifying the nature or value of such articles. Vague assertions cannot sustain a criminal charge.”
Even the claim that jewelry worth ₹40 lakh was stolen failed judicial scrutiny. The Court relied on Gupta’s earlier acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the Magistrate had already held that there was no proof of entrustment or misappropriation:
“Even if one assumes the jewelry was taken, such an act without intent to harm or coerce does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A. The allegations are speculative, uncorroborated, and fail the test of criminal intent.”
The Court explained that entrustment is the core of a 406 offence. “For criminal breach of trust, two conditions must exist: first, there must be entrustment of property; second, dishonest misappropriation of the same. Both are missing here.”
Joint bank accounts, the Court said, imply shared control, not trust violation. Similarly, vague claims of jewelry in an almirah without inventory or receipts cannot prove ownership or entrustment:
“The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence, inventory, or corroborating witness to establish entrustment or misappropriation. The assertions are general and unsubstantiated.”
Justice Bansal Krishna cited precedents like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp 1 SCC 335) and Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1168) to reiterate that courts must step in when criminal proceedings are used as instruments of harassment. Her strong words underscored the judiciary’s duty:
“Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose an offence, the Court must intervene. Continuing such proceedings would amount to a travesty of justice.”
“This is a clear case where the complaint was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to settle personal scores and to extort money from the petitioner.”
Having found no prima facie offence under Sections 498A or 406 IPC, the Court quashed FIR No. 73/2015, the chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings, observing: “There is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or harassment made out. The entire complaint, even if accepted in toto, fails to disclose any offence.”
Justice Bansal Krishna concluded decisively: “The present case is a manifest abuse of process of law, designed to settle other disputes and extract monetary benefits. The FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.”
Explanatory Table of Sections / Citations
| Law / Case | Section / Citation | Explanation / Relevance |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 498A | Penalizes cruelty by husband or his relatives. The Court held that vague, uncorroborated allegations cannot constitute “cruelty” or “harassment” under this section. |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 406 | Deals with criminal breach of trust. The Court ruled that entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must both be proved mere possession or joint ownership is insufficient. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 482 | Empowers High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. Used by petitioner to seek relief from the false FIR. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 5(i) | States that both parties must be unmarried at the time of marriage. The complainant’s subsisting first marriage rendered the alleged second marriage void ab initio. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 11 | Declares any marriage in contravention of Section 5(i) null and void. Applied by the Family Court to declare that no legal marriage existed between the parties. |
| Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | Section 138 | Earlier complaint by the same woman alleging cheque dishonour was dismissed establishing that no financial entrustment or misappropriation occurred. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Laid down principles for quashing criminal proceedings when allegations do not constitute an offence or are filed with mala fide intent. Relied on for quashing the FIR. |
| Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam | (2004) 3 SCC 199 | Clarified that even a man cohabiting under the colour of marriage may be covered under Section 498A but not when the relationship is based on fraud or suppression. |
| Digambar v. State of Maharashtra | 2024 INSC 1019 | Defined the two-fold test for cruelty: grave injury/suicidal tendency or unlawful demand for property. The present FIR failed to satisfy either condition. |
| Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra | 2025 INSC 1168 | Reaffirmed that vague and omnibus allegations of cruelty without specific dates, incidents, or evidence warrant quashing to prevent abuse of criminal law. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Om Saran Gupta & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case Number: Crl.M.C. 1641/2021 with Crl.M.A. 11506/2021 & Crl.M.A. 18426/2025
- Date of Judgment: 3 November 2025
- Judge / Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Petitioners: Om Saran Gupta (Advocate), Siddharth Gupta @ Lohia, Ashish Gupta
- Respondents: State (NCT of Delhi) and Nishi (Jaidka)
- Advocates for Petitioners: Petitioner in person
- Advocate for State: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with SI Devender Yadav
- Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Mahinder Singh
- Provisions Invoked: Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC read with Section 482 CrPC
- Trial Court Order (15 Jan 2021): Summoning Order issued by MM-04, Mahila Court, Dwarka
- Family Court Order (5 May 2022): Declared the alleged marriage null and void under Section 11 HMA
- NI Act Judgment (20 Jul 2020): Petitioner acquitted under Section 138 NI Act — no entrustment proved
- High Court Proceedings: Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR No. 73/2015 (P.S. Vikas Puri)
- Final Decision / Relief: FIR No. 73/2015, Chargesheet and all proceedings quashed in entirety
- Key Legal Principle: False dowry complaints filed with ulterior motives amount to abuse of law and must be quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice.
- Question in issue: Whether a false and void marriage claim can form the basis of criminal prosecution under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and whether the continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the judicial process when allegations are vague, unsubstantiated, and motivated by malice?
- Result / Relief Petition Allowed: FIR Quashed; All Applications Disposed Off
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.