498A IPC | “Poor And Biased Investigation. Genuine Cases Would Suffer”: Bombay High Court Slams Police For Misusing Dowry Law
The Bombay High Court criticized Maharashtra Police for poor and biased investigation in a dowry harassment case and quashed the FIR against the husband and five family members, citing misuse of Section 498-A IPC.
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
MAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad criticized the Maharashtra Police for their “casual” and “prejudicial” investigation in a dowry cruelty case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court warned that such careless actions from police can hurt genuine victims, and misusing the law can become dangerous.
The case was heard by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh, who were looking into a plea to cancel an FIR against a husband and his five family members. These included his parents, sister, brother-in-law, and cousin. The family approached the court after the wife filed a complaint of cruelty and dowry harassment.
After carefully checking the records, the Court found serious mistakes in the police investigation. Instead of going to the places where the cruelty allegedly happened—Kharghar and Manmad—the investigating officer made a spot panchnama at the complainant’s father’s house in Nanded, which had no connection to the incidents mentioned.
Also, the police did not talk to any independent witnesses like neighbours. They only took similar statements from the woman’s family members.
The High Court strongly stated:
“This shows that nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigation when it comes to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. This offence is now taken in a casual manner by the police under the presumption with which they are dealing many times with the First Information Reports and this is one of such an example of misuse. Thus, these police officers are proceeding with the investigation with some presumptions or with prejudicial mind. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.”
The complaint was filed by a woman from Nanded, who got married on January 28, 2024. She claimed that within just two months of marriage, she faced mental and physical cruelty from her husband and his family, mainly over dowry demands of Rs 20 lakh. She alleged she was beaten up and thrown out of the house on March 28.
Based on her allegations, an FIR was registered at Vimantal Police Station in Nanded under IPC sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (hurt), 504 (insult), 506 (threat), and 34 (common intention).
But the husband’s lawyer, Advocate Rashmi S Kulkarni, argued that the complaint was false and made with personal motives. The husband’s side also claimed that the woman hid the fact that she was working as a senior executive in a health insurance company in Pune.
They also told the court that the couple had stayed together for only 40 days, and that the woman had earlier visited Kharghar Police Station, but refused to file a complaint at that time.
The High Court noted many inconsistencies in her statements.
“It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing pillow on her face and applicant No.1’s second marriage should be performed,”
The court also found that the woman had not mentioned her own job or qualification in her complaint.
“She is silent about her own occupation as Medical Practitioner and in service or her even qualification,”
The judges further observed that she was referred to as “Dr.” in official police documents and RTI replies, which proves she had a medical background and was working.
The Court slammed the investigation led by Mr. M.M. Lone, stating:
“The investigation has been done by Mr. M.M. Lone… When the alleged acts of cruelty had taken place at Kharghar, Mumbai or Manmad, Nashik, he has not taken efforts to visit the place and make inquiry with the neighbouring persons,”
Instead, the officer conducted a site visit at the woman’s father’s house in Nanded, which was irrelevant.
The judges described the case as a:
“Classic example of the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.”
Because of weak evidence and poor investigation, the Court said the trial would be a waste of judicial process and quashed the FIR against all six accused.
- Advocate Rashmi S Kulkarni appeared for the husband and his family
- Additional Public Prosecutor AR Kale appeared for the State
- Advocate MM Parghane appeared for the complainant (wife)
CASE TITLE:
Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
79 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2025
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on 498A IPC
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Misusing Dowry Laws
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
