On 26 September 2025, while hearing a quashing petition, SC expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes. The petition had been filed by the husband’s brother seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings lodged u/s 498A IPC by the wife just 1.5 months after her marriage.

The wife had lodged an FIR u/s 498A IPC alleging cruelty and dowry harassment against her husband, his mother, and his brother (petitioner). The marriage had taken place only about six weeks earlier. The brother-in-law approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the FIR and all consequent proceedings on the ground that the allegations against him were vague and general, and that he was being unnecessarily dragged into the criminal case.

Court noted that while Section 498A IPC (now Section 84 BNS) was enacted to protect women from cruelty and dowry-related harassment, there has been a rising trend of its misuse. It referred to earlier judgments warning against indiscriminate prosecution of husbands’ relatives and stressed the need for courts to exercise circumspection before allowing such prosecutions to proceed.

“Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law,” Court stated.

It also observed that the FIR in the present case did not specify any dates, times, places, or distinct acts of cruelty allegedly committed by the petitioner. The allegations were general in nature and could not stand the test required for invoking criminal law. It observed

“Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.”

In regard to the allegation of physical assault, Court held “There is no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused/appellant … so as to punish her in-laws under Section 323 IPC.”

SC also cautioned against the “growing tendency” to rope in every relative of the husband whenever a matrimonial dispute arises. It reiterated that such indiscriminate prosecution, especially of distant relatives, must be discouraged to prevent harassment and to uphold the credibility of genuine complaints.

Having found the allegations to be vague and unsupported by particulars, Court quashed the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner (the brother-in-law). At the same time, it directed the husband, wife, and the husband’s mother to participate in mediation to resolve their disputes amicably. The Court clarified that any pending matrimonial or civil proceedings between the spouses would continue on their own merits.