Delhi High Court quashed 498A /406 charges against the husband’s maternal aunt and cousin, ruling that vague allegations and routine family friction cannot be treated as cruelty. The Court condemned the growing trend of dragging distant relatives into marital disputes without specific evidence.
NEW DELHI: In a powerful and much-needed intervention against the rising misuse of dowry laws, the Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A /406/34 IPC against the husband’s maternal aunt and cousin, holding that “ordinary marital friction, casual taunts, and routine family involvement do not constitute cruelty.”
Justice Amit Mahajan found that the allegations were vague, sweeping, and completely devoid of specific incidents, especially no link to any dowry demand, a mandatory ingredient under Section 498A. The Court further held that Section 406 (stridhan) requires clear entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, neither of which was even alleged properly, let alone proven.
Additionally, the Court called out the pattern of dragging distant relatives into matrimonial disputes simply to exert pressure on the husband’s family, a misuse repeatedly criticized by the Supreme Court.
“Not every disagreement is cruelty. Not every family member is an accused. Criminal law requires specifics, not sentiments.” – Delhi High Court
Facts of the Case
The complainant and her husband were residing together in Delhi after their marriage. The two petitioners who were later arrayed as accused were not members of the matrimonial household; rather, they were extended relatives specifically, the husband’s maternal aunt (maasi) and the aunt’s daughter.
Both lived separately, maintained their own independent homes, and were not involved in the daily marital life of the couple. The relationship that they shared with the complainant was limited to normal family visits, festival interactions, occasional advice, and routine communication something common to every Indian extended family structure.
Despite this, the complainant filed an FIR alleging that these relatives had interfered in her marital relationship, had “spoken against her”, and had influenced her husband’s behavior during periods of disagreement between the couple.
The accusations in the FIR were broad, unspecific and devoid of dates, incidents, or any context. There were no details regarding any dowry demand, no descriptions of specific acts of cruelty, and no allegation of sustained harassment.
Instead, the FIR contained general statements that the petitioners had made taunts and had “created mental pressure”, without explaining what was said, when it was said, or how it constituted cruelty under law. The complainant also made a blanket allegation that her stridhan had been taken and withheld by all members of the husband’s family, including these distant relatives.
However, she did not specify which article was handed over to which accused, when such entrustment took place, in whose presence it occurred, or how the petitioners had allegedly refused to return it.
There were no receipts, no item list, no recovery memo, no independent witness, and no prior written complaint suggesting that the petitioners had ever been in possession of her jewelry or personal belongings. This absence of particulars made the Section 406 IPC allegation legally unsustainable from the very outset.
It also came on record that the petitioners did not reside in the matrimonial household, did not share domestic space with the complainant, and therefore had no proximity to commit the alleged acts.
Yet, they were named in the FIR along with the husband and in-laws, in a manner the Court identified as a “routine over-implication” often seen in marital disputes, where extended relatives are dragged into criminal litigation not because of their role, but to increase pressure and leverage during matrimonial conflict.
Thus, the factual matrix clearly showed that the dispute was primarily between the husband and wife but was converted into a criminal prosecution by adding distant relatives, despite no evidence of cruelty, dowry demand, entrustment of property, or any criminal intent attributable to them. The Court noted that the allegations described a troubled marriage, not a criminal offence.
Court’s Findings
Justice Amit Mahajan carefully examined the FIR, the chargesheet, and the roles attributed to the petitioners, and concluded that the complaint did not meet the legal threshold required to prosecute them under Sections 498A or 406 IPC.
The Court observed that the allegations against the husband’s maternal aunt and her daughter were “general and sweeping in nature”, without any specific instances of dowry-related harassment or cruelty. The Judge noted that ordinary disagreements, taunts, or friction within the marital life cannot be criminalized unless they are shown to be grave, intentional, and connected with an unlawful demand:
“Mere taunts, casual remarks or normal wear and tear of domestic life do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.”
On the allegation of misappropriation of stridhan, the Court held that Section 406 IPC requires clear proof of entrustment and subsequent dishonest refusal to return the items, which was completely absent in this case:
“A vague allegation that the stridhan is with ‘all in-laws’ is insufficient. Entrustment must be specific and proved.”
Most importantly, the Court highlighted the recurring misuse of criminal law in matrimonial conflicts, particularly the practice of naming extended family members to increase pressure on the husband’s side:
“The tendency to implicate distant relatives without any specific role is a disturbing trend. Criminal trials cannot be permitted to continue such omnibus and unfounded allegations.”
The Court therefore held that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to misuse of the law and an abuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings were quashed only against the maternal aunt and her daughter while clarifying that the case may continue against the husband and those against whom specific, legally sustainable allegations exist.
Explanatory table of sections/case laws cited
| Law / Case | Section / Citation | What the Law Requires | Relevancy |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Section 498A – Cruelty | Cruelty must be grave, intentional, and linked to dowry demand, or of such nature as to cause serious mental/physical harm. | Allegations were just taunts and family disagreements → Does NOT meet legal definition of cruelty. |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Section 406 – Criminal Breach of Trust (Stridhan) | Must prove entrustment of specific items + dishonest misappropriation or refusal to return. | FIR had no entrustment details, no item list, no recovery attempt → 406 not made out. |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Section 34 – Common Intention | Requires active participation or shared intent in the alleged act. | Petitioners were not living in the matrimonial home, no role shown → Section 34 not attracted. |
| Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 | Supreme Court | Courts must prevent misuse of 498A and protect innocent relatives from false implication. | Court relied on this to stress over-implication of relatives is a recognized abuse. |
| Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 | Supreme Court | Distant relatives cannot be prosecuted on vague & omnibus allegations. | Used to reinforce that mere relationship with husband ≠ automatic guilt. |
| Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab (2024) | Punjab & Haryana HC | Courts should “read between the lines” to identify false over-implication. | Supported the finding that FIR was generic and exaggerated. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) | Supreme Court – Quashing Guidelines | FIR can be quashed where allegations are absurd, vague, or show mala fide intention. | Court invoked Bhajan Lal principle to quash proceedings. |
| Precedent on 406 IPC | Various | Entrustment must be specific, witnessed, traceable & provable. | As no entrustment facts existed → 406 automatically fails. |
Case Details
| Case Title | Shashi Arora & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Bench / Judge | Justice Amit Mahajan |
| Case Type | Criminal Petition for Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC |
| FIR Sections Invoked | Section 498A (Cruelty), Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), Section 34 (Common Intention), IPC |
| Police Station | PS Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (as noted in record) |
| Accused / Petitioners | The husband’s maternal aunt (Maasi) and her daughter (distant relatives) |
| Respondent | State (NCT of Delhi) + Complainant-wife |
| Allegations | Taunts, interference, vague claim of stridhan being held by “all in-laws,” without specific acts or evidence |
| Defense Position | Petitioners were distant relatives, living separately, had no role, no dowry demand, no entrustment, and were falsely roped in |
| Key Legal Issues | Whether generic & non-specific allegations of harassment and blanket stridhan claims can sustain 498A/406 charges against non-resident relatives |
| Date of Judgment | 3 November 2025 |
| Final Outcome | FIR & proceedings quashed only against the maternal aunt & her daughter |
| Reason for Quashing | Allegations were vague, not linked to dowry, no entrustment, and no proximity to alleged acts continuation of trial would be abuse of process |
Question in Issue: Whether a criminal prosecution under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC can be allowed to continue against distant relatives when the allegations against them consist only of vague, general statements regarding “taunts,” “interference,” and a blanket claim of stridhan being with “all in-laws,” without any specific acts, dates, evidence, or proof of entrust?
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.