Rajesh Chaddha vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 671
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2019]


RAJESH CHADDHA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. These Appeals by special leave are directed against Order
dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal
Revision No. 612/2004 filed against the judgment and order dt.
18.11.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
[ hereinafter “ Sessions Court ”] whereby the Criminal Appeal No.
Date: 2025.05.13
17:29:46 IST
Reason:
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 1 of 18


88/2004 filed by the Appellant was dismissed and the conviction
of the Appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter “IPC” & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 [ hereinafter “ DP Act, 1961 ”] vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow [ hereinafter
“ Magistrate ”] was upheld. The Order dt. 28.11.2018 dismissing
the recall application against the said Order dt.14.11.2018 is also
under challenge before this Court.
3. The captioned Appeal arises out of Case Crime No.
60/1999 lodged by the PS Women Police Station, Lucknow under
Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961, on the basis of a Complaint dt. 20.12.1999 filed by the
Complainant wife, against the Appellant husband and her in-laws
alleging mental and physical torture for not bringing enough
dowry. The factual conspectus in brief is as under:
3.1 The marriage of the Appellant with the Complainant, Ms.
Mala Chaddha, had taken place on 12.02.1997. The Appellant
resided separately with the Complainant wife only for a period of
12 days, from 08.09.1998 to 20.09.1998.
3.2 The Complainant who was working as a teacher with St.
Thomas School prior to her marriage had allegedly resigned from
her job on the advice of the Appellant husband; and her family
had spent more than Rs. 5 lakhs towards the wedding. However,
the Appellant, her in-laws, and the brother-in-law ( Jeth ) were
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 2 of 18


constantly unhappy & dissatisfied, and subjected her to constant
taunts, and inflicted upon her physical and mental atrocities. It is
alleged that the Appellant husband and her in-laws forced the
Complainant to consume milk mixed with some
narcotic/alcoholic substances, and forced upon her to attend
parties with his friends, where alcohol was served, and if the
Complainant refused, the Appellant and his family would
humiliate her. Allegedly, the parents-in-laws, in conspiracy with
the Appellant, had planned to kill her, and had kept her in a safe
house, separately from the matrimonial home, the keys for which
were with the parents-in-law. On 23.09.1998, when the father of
the Complainant was invited to the matrimonial house, the
Appellant and her in-laws had allegedly assaulted the
Complainant with kicks and punches in front of her father. The
Appellant and his family purportedly expelled the Complainant,
while she was pregnant. Thereafter, on 10.02.1998, the Appellant
and her family again while ousting her out of the house, allegedly
gave her a strong push, and as a result she fell down, and owing
to the injury, had suffered a miscarriage. It is the case of the
Complainant in the FIR that she made several requests for
reconciliation including efforts through Family Counselling
Centre till 16.12.1999, but it has been in vain, and as a
consequence she registered the Complaint dt. 20.12.1999 against
the Appellant and his family.
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 3 of 18


3.3 In her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”), before the Magistrate, the
Complainant reiterated the allegations in the FIR and stated for
the first time that she was forced by the Appellant and his family
to join service in St. Fidelis School, Aliganj, Lucknow and the in-
laws would snatch her entire month’s salary, which was only Rs.
4,000/- at the time. On 23.09.1998, when the Appellant raised a
demand of Rs. 2 Lacs, and her parents were unable to arrange the
money, the Appellant and the in-laws allegedly beat her up. The
Complainant asserts that she only took with her four gold bangles
and one ring, while leaving her matrimonial home in July 1997
and rest all jewellery and list of items were with the Appellant or
his family.
3.4 The Complainant and her father were examined as PW-1
and PW-2, respectively. PW-2, has fully supported the testimony
of PW-1, and in both the statements, the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as
dowry by the in-laws & the mental and physical atrocities
inflicted on her, is persistent. However, both the witnesses could
not substantiate the allegations of hurt or physical assault. The
Trial Court vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004, upon duly considering
the testimony of both the witnesses and the material on record,
observed that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 34
IPC, rendering the following opinion:
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 4 of 18


“It is evident from perusal of the
evidence available on record that both
the fact witnesses have not made it
clear in their evidence that any simple
hurt was caused to the Complainant as
a result of the physical assault by
accused persons. Even if it is believed
that the accused committed mar-pit
with the Complainant, I think had the
Complainant been subjected to
physical assault by all the accused
persons by kicks and punches, yet she
would have sustained serious injuries
and in such a situation, I am of the
opinion that medical examination of
the Complainant must have been done
so as to prove that she has sustained
injuries due to the assault by accused
persons, but it appears from the
perusal of the record that the
prosecution did not attempted to
adduce any such evidence before the
court as any medical certificate/injury
report with regard to the injuries of the
Complainant has not been filed. In this
context, the evidence of the
complainant is the only strong
evidence regarding the injuries, as she
was subjected to physical assault by
the accused persons but it appears
from perusal of the testimony of the
witness that she has nowhere
mentioned in her statement that she
sustained injuries on such and such
part of her body due to the physical
assault committed by accused persons.
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 5 of 18



Besides, it is also evident from record
that the prosecution has further stated
that the complainant had miscarriage
due to physical assault committed by
accused persons. In my opinion, if such
an incident had actually taken place,
the complainant was required to get
her medical examination done so as to
prove that the miscarriage took place
due to physical assault committed by
the accused persons as a miscarriage
is not a normal/ordinary course of
events but it is clear from perusal of
record that prosecution has not
adduced any cogent evidence with
regard to the miscarriage. Therefore,
the allegation of miscarriage due to
physical assault proves to be
concocted story. In light of the
foregoing discussion, I reach the
conclusion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the allegation of
physical assault of the complainant
and resultant simple hurt beyond
reasonable doubt.”

3.5 The Trial Court vide Judgment dt. 28.08.2004, observed
that although the prosecution had failed to prove its case against
the Appellant & the co-accused persons, for offences under
Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC; it had proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the case under Section 498A IPC and Section 4
of the D.P. Act, 1961 against the Appellant alone. The Trial Court
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 6 of 18


acquitted the Appellant for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 and
Section 506 IPC and convicted him for offences under Section
498A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961. Accordingly, the
Trial Court sentenced the Appellant as under:

Appellant against the Judgment dt. 28.08.2024 passed by the
Magistrate, was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge,
vide its Judgment/Final Order dt. 18.11.2004 and the conviction
under Section 498A of IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 &
the quantum of sentence qua the Appellant was upheld.
3.7 The Appellant had preferred a Criminal Revision No.
612/2004 against the Judgment/Final Order dt. 18.11.2004 before
the High Court, which has been dismissed vide Impugned
Judgement and Final Order dt. 14.11.2018. The High Court within
its powers of revision, upheld the conviction of the Appellant
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961
with the observation that there was no error of law or perversity
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 7 of 18


in the orders passed by the lower courts. The said portion is
reproduced as under:

“I have perused the judgment and
orders dated 18.112004 and
28.08.2004, passed by learned courts
below. The learned courts below have
considered all aspects of the matter in
detail and I do not find any error of law
or perversity in the aforesaid
impugned judgment and orders. The
instant revision lacks merit, and
deserves to be dismissed.”

3.8 Further, vide Order dt. 28.11.2018, passed by the High
Court, the Application seeking recall of the Impugned Order
dt.14.11.2018 was also rejected at the threshold, as being
misconceived in law.
4. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant that the Impugned Judgment dt. 14.11.2018 passed
by the High Court, suffers from non-application of mind, and non-
consideration of the merits of the case. Learned Counsel for the
Appellant submitted that the allegations under Section 498A IPC
and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, were unsustainable qua the
Appellant, as there is no independent evidence on behalf of the
prosecution, and the entire case hinges upon the deposition of the
father of the Complainant and Complainant herself. It was argued
that the Complainant who cohabited with the Appellant only for
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 8 of 18


a period of about a year, had made bald allegations without any
specifics of date, time or event, in the FIR in Case Crime No.
60/1999, which has only been registered as a counter-blast to the
Divorce Petition preferred by the Appellant. It is brought to our
notice that the divorce decree in lieu of their marriage, has already
been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the
Complainant, and hence has attained finality.
5. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant, that the High Court passed the Impugned Order in
absence of representation of a Counsel on behalf of the Appellant,
which is not permissible. Learned Counsel for the Appellant
submitted that in the absence of a Counsel for the Appellant, the
High Court could have appointed an amicus-curiae to represent
the case of the Appellant, rather than passing an adversarial order
against him.
6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the State
that to establish cruelty within the threshold of Section 498A, the
evidence of the relatives of the Complainant wife cannot be
brushed aside. The deposition of the father of the Complainant
does establish that the Complainant was time and again harassed,
and beaten her up for not bringing enough dowry. Reliance was
placed on Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 9 of 18


1 2
Maharashtra , Arun Vyas & Anr. v. Anita Vyas , Surendran v.
3
State of Kerala .
ANALYSIS
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and having perused the record, the question remains whether the
High Court vide Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018 whilst exercising
its revisionary jurisdiction, was correct in upholding the
conviction of the Appellant under Section 498A IPC & Section 4
D.P. Act, 1961. In that respect, it is prudent to examine the
statutory provisions, which are as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine. Explanation.— For the
purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means— (a) any wilful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or (b)

1
(2016) 10 SCC 537
2
(1999) 4 SCC 690
3
(2022) 15 SCC 273
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 10 of 18


harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing
her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
3. Penalty for giving or taking
dowry.— ( 1) If any person, after the
commencement of this Act, gives or
takes or abets the giving or taking of
dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years, and with
fine which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is
more. Provided that the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be
recorded in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than five years. (2) Nothing in sub-
section (1) shall apply to, or in relation
to,— (a) presents which are given at
the time of a marriage to the bride
without any demand having been made
in that behalf: Page 12 of 26 Provided
that such presents are entered in a list
maintained in accordance with the
rules made under this Act; (b) presents
which are given at the time of a
marriage to the bridegroom without
any demand having been made in that
behalf: Provided that such presents are
entered in a list maintained in
accordance with the rules made under
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 11 of 18


this Act: Provided further that where
such presents are made by or on behalf
of the bride or any person related to
the bride, such presents are of a
customary nature and the value thereof
is not excessive having regard to the
financial status of the person by whom,
or on whose behalf, such presents are
given.
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.— If
any person demands, directly or
indirectly, from the parents or other
relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months, but which
may extend to two years and with fine
which may extend to ten thousand
rupees: Provided that the Court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than six months.”

8. At the outset, an act of ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section
498A, corresponds to a willful conduct of such nature, that may
cause danger to the life, limb and health of the woman, which is
inclusive of the mental and physical health and the harassment
caused to her, by coercing her to meet unlawful demands or
impossible standards. Further, the demand for dowry in terms of
Section 3 and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 refers to both a
direct or indirect manner of demand for dowry made by the
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 12 of 18


husband or his family members. In order to meet the threshold of
the offences under Section 498A IPC & Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.
Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin
air.
9. In the present case, the allegations made by the
Complainant are vague, omnibus and bereft of any material
particulars to substantiate this threshold. Apart from claiming that
Appellant husband harassed her for want of dowry, the
Complainant has not given any specific details or described any
particular instance of harassment. The allegations in the FIR, and
the depositions of the prosecution witnesses suggest that on
multiple occasions, the Complainant wife was ousted from the
matrimonial house, and kicked and punched in the presence of
her father, PW-2 herein and she was repeatedly tormented with
dowry demands, and when she was unable to honor them, the
Appellant and her family physically beat her up; whereas she has
not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the
alleged harassment occurred. It is alleged that the Complainant
suffered a miscarriage, as she fell down, when the Appellant and
her family who pushed her out of the house; however, no medical
document from any medical institution or hospital or nursery was
produced to substantiate the allegations.
10. Upon carefully considering the record, we find that apart
from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, there is no evidence to
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 13 of 18


substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty
within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P.
Act, 1961. For this reason, we find merit in the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Appellant, and are of the considered view
that there is no material on record to establish the allegations of
hurt or miscarriage, and of hurt and criminal intimidation in terms
of Section 323 r/w 34 and Section 506 IPC respectively. The Trial
Court has rightly held that evidence of the Complainant is the
only strong evidence that she sustained injuries on various parts
of her body due to the physical assault by the accused persons,
and that there was no medical examination conducted by the
Complainant, so as to prove that the miscarriage was a
consequence of the physical assault.
11. The Trial Court has indeed applied its judicial mind to the
material on record whilst acquitting the Appellant and the co-
accused parents-in-law for offences under Section 323 r/w 34 &
Section 506 IPC. However, it appears that the Trial Court had
passed the order of conviction of the Appellant under Section
498A IPC & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, merely on the
possibility that the allegations and the depositions of the PW-1
corroborated by PW2, are true and correct. Although one cannot
deny the emotional or mental torture that the Complainant may
have undergone in the marriage, however a cursory or plausible
view cannot be conclusive proof to determine the guilt of an
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 14 of 18


individual under Section 498A & Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961,
especially to obviate malicious criminal prosecution of family
members in matrimonial disputes. In this respect, we also cannot
ignore that the FIR dt. 20.12.1999 was registered after the
Appellant had filed the Divorce Petition under Section 13 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 06.02.1999. In consideration
thereof and that the Complainant had cohabited with the
Appellant only for a period of about a year, it appears that the FIR
registered by the Complainant was not genuine.
12. In respect thereof, the High Court while exercising its
revisionary jurisdiction ought to have examined the correctness
of decision of the Trial Court in light of the material on record,
which reveals nothing incriminatory against the Appellant to
sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC or Section 4 of the
D.P. Act, 1961. Although we do not agree with the submission on
behalf of the Appellant that the Impugned Order dt. 14.11.2018
was passed in absentia , however the High Court was well within
its revisionary powers to discern whether an FIR and the
proceedings emanating therefrom were sustainable. In all
certainty, it could have saved 6 years’ worth of time for the
Appellant, who has endured litigation for over 20 years as of
today.
13. Notwithstanding the merits of the case, we are distressed
with the manner, the offences under Section 498A IPC, and
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 15 of 18


Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961 are being maliciously roped
in by Complainant wives, insofar as aged parents, distant
relatives, married sisters living separately, are arrayed as accused,
in matrimonial matters. This growing tendency to append every
relative of the husband, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the
allegations made by the Complainant wife or her family
members, and vitiates the very objective of a protective
legislation. The observations made by this Hon’ble Court in the
case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana
4
& Anr. appropriately encapsulates this essence as under:


“25. A mere reference to the names of
family members in a criminal case
arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating
their active involvement should be
nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial
experience, that there is often a
tendency to implicate all the members
of the husband’s family when domestic
disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by
concrete evidence or particularised
allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and
the legal process and avoid

4
(2025) 3 SCC 735
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 16 of 18


unnecessary harassment of innocent
family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of appellant
No.1 have been living in different cities
and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1
and respondent No.2 herein. Hence,
they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an
abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made
against each of them.”


14. The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the
parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific
instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections,
without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens
the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the
viability of the version of a Complainant. We cannot ignore the
missing specifics in a criminal complaint, which is the premise of
invoking criminal machinery of the State. Be that as it may, we
are informed that the marriage of the Appellant has already been
dissolved and the divorce decree has attained finality, hence any
further prosecution of the Appellant will only tantamount to an
abuse of process of law.
15. We accordingly allow the Appeals and the Order
dt.14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal
Revision No. 612/2004 convicting the Appellant under Section
SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 17 of 18


498A of IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, is set aside and the
Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.


……………………………………J.
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]




……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi
May 13, 2025.




SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019 Page 18 of 18