Taunting For Not Being Able To Conceive Child Not Cruelty: AP High Court Quashes Dowry Act, 498A IPC Case Against Married Sister-In-Laws

Quashing proceedings against sisters of the husband (first accused), who were together accused of subjecting the wife of the first accused to cruelty and demanding dowry, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N, held,

“…the petitioners 3 and 4 after their marriage were staying away from the marital home of the 1st accused and the 3rd respondent. Even as per the complaint, the third respondent had joined the 1st accused and the petitioners 2 and 3 at Hyderabad. The only reference to the petitioners 3 and 4 is to the effect that, whenever they were visiting the home where the accused No.1 and the 3rd respondent were residing, they were taunting the third respondent for not being able to conceive, such vague allegations without any specific details as to on what date and when the said taunting was resorted to by petitioners 3 and 4 cannot sustain the scrutiny of law.”

Facts:

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners, who were family members of the first accused (husband) and were alleged to have committed offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty] or Section 3 [Penalty for giving or taking dowry] and Section 4 [Penalty for demanding dowry] of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the DV Act”).

The petitioners were the parents (Petitioner 1 and 2) and sisters (Petitioner 3 and 4) of the first accused, who stated that they did not interfere in the marital disputes occurring between the first accused and the third respondent (wife/complainant). During the investigation too, no specific allegations were made by witnesses against the petitioners that could invite the application of Section 498A of the IPC or Section 3 and 4 of the DV Act. Regardless, they were arraigned as accused.

Findings:

The Court noted that the complaint filed by the third respondent did not reveal any specific allegations against Petitioner 3 and 4, barring the fact that they taunted Respondent 3 for not conceiving. In this regard, the Court held that, in the absence of specific allegations, mere taunting cannot be a sufficient ground to invoke Section 498A of the IPC or Section 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act.

Moreover, noting that the present case was an example where unconnected relatives of the accused are roped in as accused only for wreaking out vengeance against the first accused, the Single Judge observed,

“Going by the allegations made in the complaint and as seen from the record of the witness statements recorded by the police, even if the allegations made against the petitioners 3 and 4 are to be taken as true and correct for the purpose of the case, no case can be made out against the petitioners 3 and 4 under Section 498 A of IPC or Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.”

Considering the fact that Petitioner 3 and 4 did not even reside with the couple, the Court held,

“The petitioners 3 and 4, soon after their marriage, were staying away and as such could not have resorted to any harassment to the third respondent and the allegations against the petitioners 3 and 4 cannot be considered as sufficient for punishing them for the of offences under Section 498A of IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act.”

Resultantly, the Court partly allowed the criminal petition and ordered the case against Petitioner 3 and 4 only, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum–Principal Civil Judge, Srikakulam, to be quashed.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4896/2023

Case Title: Basuru Mani Bhushana Rao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Date: 24.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order