Understand Section 498A IPC: meaning of cruelty, dowry harassment, punishment, arrest safeguards, and when courts quash FIRs for vague allegations.

Meaning of “Cruelty” under Section 498A IPC (85 BNS)

The Explanation to Section 498A / 85 BNS clarifies “cruelty” broadly into two categories:

(A) Cruelty likely to cause severe harm

Cruelty includes wilful conduct likely to:

• drive a woman to commit suicide, or

• cause grave injury or danger to her life/health (mental or physical). 

(B) Dowry-related harassment

Cruelty also includes harassment aimed at coercing the woman (or her relatives) to meet an unlawful demand for property/valuable security, or harassment because such demand was not met. 

Punishment under Section 498A IPC (85 bns)

Section 498A (85 BNS) is punishable with:

• imprisonment up to 3 years, and

• fine. 

When Can a 498A ipc/85 bns FIR Be Quashed? (High Court / Supreme Court Principles)

• Courts typically examine whether, even if the FIR allegations are accepted as true, they make out an offence against each accused.  

• In addition, courts have held that if allegations against a particular accused are vague and general, allowing prosecution to continue may not be expedient in the interest of justice. 

• Important: Courts also recognise the counter-principle—if a prima facie case exists, courts should not routinely quash proceedings at the threshold.

Does Living in the Same House Change the Legal Test?

Many people assume, “If in-laws lived together, discharge/quashing is impossible.”

That is not the correct legal test.

Even in co-residence cases, the key judicial question remains:

• What is the specific role attributed to each accused?

• Are there date/incident-wise particulars, or only “all accused harassed me” type statements?

Where allegations are general and omnibus and no specific role is assigned to each in-law, courts have held that prosecution may not be warranted against those relatives. 

FAQs

• Q1. Is Section 498A only for dowry?

• No. It covers serious wilful conduct causing grave mental/physical harm, and also dowry-linked harassment. 

• Q2. Can in-laws be made accused under 498A?

• Yes, but courts caution that relatives should not be roped in on omnibus allegations without specific instances of involvement. 

• Q3. Can a High Court quash a 498A FIR?

• Yes, in appropriate cases to prevent abuse of process (Bhajan Lal principles), especially where allegations are vague/general and do not make out a prima facie case against a particular accused. 

• Q4. If parties settle, can FIR be quashed?

• The compilation discusses that quashing may be exercised to secure ends of justice in settlement situations, depending on facts (and Section 320 may not bar inherent powers). 

Also Read: Our Dowry Case Services

Citations / Case Law Reference (Section 498A IPC)

1) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599

Brief facts

• Marriage took place on 18.09.2017; an earlier complaint was made within months (11.12.2017) with allegations of dowry demand/cruelty; later an FIR No. 248/2019 was registered under Sections 498A/34 IPC, 3/4 Dowry Actetc., implicating husband’s relatives largely on broad allegations.

Court finding

• The Court reiterated that general/omnibus allegations against relatives (without specific role/instances) should not be allowed to continue as criminal prosecution and can be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

2) Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741

Brief facts

• The complainant-wife implicated the husband’s brother and sister-in-law etc. in a 498A/DP Act case, but the record showed no particularised allegations explaining what those relatives did, and the material mainly showed an attempt to rope in extended family.

Court finding

• SC held that where FIR/charge-sheet does not disclose the legal basis to proceed (no specific role; relative not living in matrimonial home, etc.), the accused relative should not be forced to face trial; proceedings were quashedagainst such relatives.  

3) Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.(2010) 7 SCC 667

Brief facts

• The case involved allegations under 498A/DP Act where, in the Court’s assessment, relatives were being implicated in a manner reflecting the common tendency to involve “as many relatives as possible” in matrimonial litigation.

Court finding

• The Supreme Court cautioned that courts must be extremely careful with such complaints and consider practical realities; vague and sweeping allegations against relatives warrant judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse/harassment.  

4) K. Subba Rao & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 452

Brief facts

• The Court dealt with proceedings under 498A/120B/420/365 IPC, and on reviewing the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet, found that a prima facie case was not made out against the appellants.  

Court finding

• It reiterated the settled approach that husband’s relatives should not be roped in on omnibus allegations unless specific instances are made out, and accordingly quashed proceedings qua the appellants.  

5) Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2025) 3 SCC 735

Brief facts

• Marriage: 08.03.2015; wife lodged FIR No. 82/2022 (01.02.2022) under 498A IPC + 3/4 Dowry Act against husband, in-laws, and sisters-in-law; allegations included dowry given and later harassment for additional dowry.  

Court finding

• Court found that the FIR timing/context suggested a retaliatory measure; allegations against relatives were vague and omnibus, and the Court highlighted misuse of 498A through generalised accusations if not scrutinized.  

6) Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025 INSC 1152)

Brief facts

• Supreme Court analysed whether allegations in FIR (cruelty/harassment/hurt) were vague/general and whether continuation of prosecution would be unjust, applying Bhajan Lal parameters.

Court finding

• Court held Bhajan Lal category applied: offences not made out, allegations vague and general, and it was not in the interest of justice to permit prosecution to continue.  

7) Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2015 INSC 1168)

Brief facts

• The Court applied the Bhajan Lal tests (including mala fide/ulterior motive categories) while considering whether FIR allegations and collected material disclose any offence.  

Court finding

• Held that when allegations are vague/general and do not disclose offences, prosecution should not continue; also reiterated that mere naming of family members without specific allegations should be “nipped in the bud” (quoted with approval).  

Disclaimer

This page is for general legal information. Case outcomes depend on facts, evidence, and proper representation.

Contact Us Today | Pankaj Kumar & Co. | Top Law Firm in Delhi

Pankaj Kumar & Co. is recognized as one of the leading law firms in Delhi, known for our commitment to excellence and client satisfaction. 

If you require legal assistance in any legal area, Pankaj Kumar & Co. is here to help. Our experienced team of lawyers is ready to provide you with expert legal support tailored to your specific needs.

Call Now for Instant Advice 📞at 8800543454 or Email us at advpk1@gmail.com to schedule a consultation. Let us help you navigate your legal challenges with confidence and peace of mind.