Case Background

Nishi Gupta had initially engaged Om Saran Gupta, a 66-year-old advocate, to represent her in a divorce case against her first husband, Jeetender Jaidka. Despite being granted a divorce decree on 7 August 2010, Nishi alleged that she married Gupta on 27 August 2007 at an Arya Samaj Mandir—three years before her divorce was finalized. The relationship later soured, leading to complaints of cruelty and misappropriation.

In 2015, Nishi lodged FIR No. 73/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, alleging that Om Saran Gupta and his sons had harassed her for dowry, taken jewelry worth ₹40 lakhs, and issued two cheques that later bounced. Gupta denied the allegations, asserting that the marriage was void ab initio, since Nishi was not legally divorced at the time, and accused her of fraudulently fabricating documents and misusing the law to extort money.

Key Issues

1. Whether an offence under Section 498A IPC can be sustained when the marriage itself is void.

2. Whether allegations in the FIR satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

3. Whether the FIR was a case of abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Court’s Findings

1. Validity of Marriage and Applicability of Section 498A

The Family Court had already declared the marriage null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Judgment dated 5 May 2022), restraining Nishi from representing herself as Gupta’s wife. However, Justice Krishna relied on Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004) 3 SCC 199, holding that even a void marriage does not automatically shield the man from liability under Section 498A, since cruelty can still be inflicted under the guise of a marital relationship.

Nevertheless, the Court observed that the allegations were too vague and unsubstantiated to meet the definition of “cruelty” under Section 498A. There were no specific instances, dates, or evidence of physical or mental harassment or dowry demands. The claims about missing jewelry and threats to upload private videos were deemed unsupported and exaggerated.

2. Allegations under Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust)

Nishi claimed that Gupta withdrew money from their joint account and took away her jewelry worth ₹40 lakhs. The Court clarified that Section 406 requires entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation.

• In a joint account, both holders have equal rights—hence, no entrustment exists.

• The jewelry allegations had already been dismissed in a Section 138 NI Act trial (regarding bounced cheques), where Gupta was acquitted due to lack of evidence, inconsistencies, and absence of witnesses or receipts.
  Thus, the same unproven claims could not sustain an independent 406 IPC charge.

3. Abuse of Legal Process

Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1168), the Court reiterated that when allegations are vague, unsubstantiated, and motivated by personal vendetta, the proceedings amount to misuse of criminal law. The FIR appeared to be a retaliatory act to settle personal disputes rather than a genuine complaint of cruelty.

Judgment

The Court held that:

• Essential ingredients of Sections 498A and 406 IPC were not satisfied.

• The allegations were general, unsupported, and mala fide.

• The FIR and charge sheet were manifestly an abuse of the judicial process.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed FIR No. 73/2015, the charge sheet, and all consequential proceedings against Om Saran Gupta and his sons.

Significance

This judgment underscores judicial vigilance against the misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws. It clarifies that while Section 498A can apply even to void marriages, specific evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment is indispensable. The ruling also reinforces that joint account withdrawals or property disputes do not amount to criminal breach of trust and that criminal law should not be used as a tool for personal revenge.