Section 498A IPC: Gujarat HC Says Vague Allegations Against In-laws Can’t Stand

The bench of Justice J.C. Doshi on September 2, 2025, allowed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the complainant. The applicants had sought quashing of a 2016 FIR registered with Vatva Police Station. The FIR accused them of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 294(1), 506(1), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicants contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case through broad and unspecific allegations. Their counsel argued that the complainant had attempted to “enrope” them in the dispute with her husband, and that the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any specific incident of cruelty or harassment attributable to them. Instead, they were merely accused of “inciting” the husband. The petitioners maintained that such allegations were insufficient to attract Section 498A IPC and sought quashing of the proceedings.

On the other hand, counsel for the complainant submitted that the in-laws’ role in instigating the husband was the root cause of the cruelty suffered by the complainant. It was argued that their involvement should be tested at trial to determine the veracity of the allegations. Supporting this position, the State also urged dismissal of the quashing petition.

After examining the FIR and arguments, the court observed that the allegations against the petitioners were neither specific nor concrete. “In order to establish offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security,” Justice Doshi noted.

Court also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court, including Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), where the apex court held that bald allegations against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes often reflected an attempt to implicate as many family members as possible. Similarly, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad (2000), the Supreme Court cautioned against encouraging litigation where entire families were unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial discord.

Referring to these rulings, the high court emphasized that continuation of criminal proceedings based only on vague accusations would be an “abuse of the process of law.” .

In the present case, the role of the petitioners is found to be limited to inciting the husband, without any specific incident being attributed to them," court underscored. 

"Causal reference of the petitioners in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance," court held. 

The order further underlined the judiciary’s consistent concern that misuse of dowry harassment provisions to implicate extended relatives diverts focus from genuine cases of cruelty.

“Except bald allegations against the petitioners, who are mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the complainant, no specific incident or overt act is alleged. Allowing them to face trial would be an absurd process,” the court concluded.

Accordingly, the high court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, along with all consequential proceedings, insofar as the petitioners were concerned. The order does not extend to the husband, against whom allegations of cruelty remain.

Case Title: Shahnaz Kausar & Ors. Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.

Order Date: September 2, 2025

Bench: Justice J.C. Doshi