The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed FIR No.99 dated 01.06.2022 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, along with all consequent proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath. Justice Sandeep Sharma, while allowing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, observed that the mere sale of the matrimonial house by the petitioners cannot be treated as an act of demanding dowry or subjecting the complainant to cruelty so as to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
The FIR was lodged by complainant Anjali Rana alleging that after her marriage with petitioner Rahul Dadhwal on 11.10.2021, she was left at her parental home in Himachal Pradesh and later found her matrimonial house in Delhi locked. She claimed her belongings were still with the in-laws. However, during the pendency of the criminal case, the complainant and petitioner No.1 filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Palampur. The Family Court recorded their statements and dissolved the marriage by mutual consent. In their statements, both parties categorically stated that they had amicably settled all disputes and nothing remained to be given or taken between them.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that a bare reading of the FIR and the status report filed by the State did not disclose any specific allegation of demand of dowry or coercion for valuable security. The Court categorically held that even if the matrimonial house situated at Delhi was sold by the petitioners, such an act by itself cannot be construed as demanding dowry within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The basic ingredients of cruelty as defined under the Explanation to the said section were found to be totally missing in the case.
The Court further observed that after the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the clear statements made by the parties before the Family Court that no claims remained against each other, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. Relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court on the scope of inherent powers, the Court held that where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court is justified in exercising its powers to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings and acquitted the petitioners of the charges framed against them.
Case Title: Rahul Dadhwal & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Case No.: Cr.MMO No.1083 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Date of Judgment: 05th May 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 