Wife & Her Family Cannot Be Prosecuted For 'Dowry-Giving' Based On Her Complaint Against Husband For Taking Dowry : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 16) held that a woman or his family members could not be subjected to proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act for 'giving' dowry based on the averments made by them in their complaint against the 'dowry takers'.

A bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed an appeal filed by a husband who sought to have an FIR registered against his wife and her family.

The husband argued that because his wife had admitted to providing dowry in her own legal complaint against him, she had effectively confessed to a crime under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act), which penalizes the "giving" of dowry. However, the court rejected his attempt to use her allegations as a basis for criminal proceedings against her.

Relying on Section 7(3) of the DP Act which shields the dowry giver from the prosecution if the admission of giving dowry was made in complaint against dowry demand, the Court said that “statements made by the wife and her family members, being the persons aggrieved, against the husband and his family with regard to the 'taking' of dowry cannot be the substratum for launching prosecution against the wife and her family members for the offence of 'giving dowry' under Section 3 of the DP Act.”

Initially, the wife filed an FIR against the husband and family alleging offences under under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In turn, the husband filed a complaint against the wife and her family, alleging offence of dowry-giving. His allegation was that though dowry was not taken by him and his family, the statements made by his wife and her family members to the effect that they had given dowry constituted the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act.The Magistrate dismissed his complaint, refusing to direct the registration of FIR.

When would the Section 7 shield not be applicable?

Section 7(3) of the Act reads as follows - "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act."

The Court clarified that “where independent evidence was presented with regard to the 'giving' of dowry and reliance was not placed only upon the complaint and statements made by the persons aggrieved, i.e., the wife and her family members, it would have been possible to register an FIR for the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act as, in such a situation, the protection afforded to the 'persons aggrieved', under Section 7(3) of the DP Act, would not be available to them."

However, adding to the facts of the case, the Court said that once it is established that the offence of giving dowry is made out only from the complaint/statements made by the woman/ or her family members, then in such cases the dowry giver is protected from the prosecution.

“if in a given case all that is projected to establish the offence of 'giving' dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act is the complaint and/or the statements made by the wife and her family members, it would invariably mean that they, being the 'persons aggrieved', would be fully covered by the shield of immunity raised under Section 7(3) of the DP Act and would not be liable to be prosecuted on the strength thereof.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed; thus, the order passed by the magistrate refusing to register an FIR against the Respondent's wife based on the Appellant's Section 156(3) CrPC application was upheld.

“…the petitioner has no merit as his attack against his wife…and her family members was based only upon her complaint and the statements recorded by her and her family members, under Section 161 CrPC, and the statutory protection under Section 7(3) of the DP Act was, therefore, applicable to them.”, the court held.

Cause Title: Rahul Gupta versus Station House Officer and others

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 381

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saif Rizvi, Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Ms. Modoyia K., Adv. Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR