Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against 19-year-old Harsheeta Thakur, saying the dowry law must not be misused against innocent relatives. The judgment stressed that protecting women cannot become a reason to harass minors or distant family members.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect 19-year-old Harsheeta Thakur, saying she was unfairly dragged into a dowry harassment case without any real evidence. The court called the FIR against her a clear example of the “misuse of dowry harassment laws” and removed her name from the criminal case.
Harsheeta Thakur, who is the niece of the complainant’s husband, was booked at Pandav Nagar Police Station under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint against her claimed that she blocked some household items and damaged CCTV cameras. But the FIR never mentioned any demand for dowry or cruelty on her part. She was only 19 years old at that time. Even the complainant did not object when the FIR against her was asked to be quashed.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while cancelling the FIR, strongly pointed out the danger of dragging innocent people into such cases.
The court said:
“On a prima-facie view of the matter, the only allegations against the petitioner are of blocking household goods and destroying CCTV cameras, none of which even prima facie comprise offences under Sections 498A or 406 IPC.”
The judge also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759), where the top court had warned against vague and blanket complaints by wives. Such cases, the Supreme Court had said, wrongly expose innocent relatives to police investigations and criminal trials without any proper basis.
The Delhi High Court also told the Investigating Officer to be careful in the future and ensure that no person should be sent to trial unless there is solid evidence. The court made it clear that laws meant to protect women cannot be misused to target unrelated family members, especially young girls or minors.
In a strong message, the High Court warned:
“The law cannot be used as a weapon to harass innocent family members.”
The judgment stressed that while it is very important to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, it is equally important to prevent the false implication of innocent relatives. The court underlined the urgent need for balance in 498A cases so that justice is not lost in misuse.
| Section / Case | Full Name / Meaning | Purpose of the Law | How It Was Misused / Applied in This Case | Court’s Observation |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by Husband or Relatives | Protects married women from cruelty and dowry-related harassment by husband or in-laws. | Harsheeta (a niece, not even directly related to dowry demands) was wrongly accused of blocking household goods and tampering with CCTV. No dowry demand alleged. | Court said such trivial allegations do not amount to cruelty or dowry harassment. |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal Breach of Trust | Punishes anyone who dishonestly misuses or refuses to return property entrusted to them. | FIR claimed she interfered with household goods, but no entrustment of property or breach of trust was proved. | Court held that the allegations do not fit Section 406 IPC at all. |
| Section 34 IPC | Common Intention | Holds multiple people jointly liable if they commit a crime together with a shared plan. | Added in FIR only to implicate more family members, but no evidence of joint plan or intention against complainant. | Court said vague allegations cannot justify Section 34 IPC against a 19-year-old. |
| Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 759) | Supreme Court Ruling | Warned courts and police against vague, omnibus allegations by wives against husband’s distant relatives in 498A cases. | Used by the High Court as a guiding precedent to show how blanket allegations wrongly drag in innocent relatives. | High Court applied this ruling and protected Harsheeta. |
Case Title: Harsheeta Thakur vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (W.P.(CRL) 167/2025)
Counsels
- For the Petitioner:
Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate
with Mr. Anshul Mittal and Ms. Khushi Aggarwal, Advocates - For the State/Respondents:
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State on behalf of Mr. Anand V. Khatri, ASC for the State
SI Sachin Sharma with ASI Mohin Ali, P.S.: Pandav Nagar
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Details
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 167/2025
- Date of Order: 17.01.2025
- FIR Details: FIR No. 357/2024 dated 14.08.2024
- Police Station: Pandav Nagar, Delhi
- Sections Invoked: 498A/406/34 IPC
Petitioner’s Case:
-
- Petitioner (19-year-old niece of respondent no. 2’s husband) seeks quashing of FIR.
- Allegations against her: blocking usage of household goods by complainant and destroying CCTV cameras.
- Counsel argues that these do not constitute offences under 498A/406 IPC.
- Relied on Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 regarding vague allegations against relatives.
Court Proceedings:
-
- Exemption application (CRL.M.A. 1314/2025) allowed.
- Notice issued to State.
- State seeks 6 weeks for filing status report.
- IO expected to file chargesheet within a month; assurance given that no accused will be sent for trial without sufficient material.
- Case re-notified for 09 May 2025.
- Stay application (CRL.M.A. 1313/2025) also listed for same date.
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.