New Delhi, November 3 - In a detailed and rather unusual judgment, the Delhi High Court on Monday quashed an FIR lodged against a 66-year-old advocate, Om Saran Gupta, under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the case appeared to be a manifest abuse of the process of law, as the allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust did not satisfy the legal ingredients of those offences.
The FIR, registered in 2015 at Vikas Puri police station, was filed by Gupta’s alleged second wife, Nishi, claiming dowry harassment and misappropriation of jewellery worth ₹40 lakh.
Background
The matter had a complicated backdrop. Nishi had first married one Jeetender Jaidka in 1991 and divorced him in 2010. She later claimed to have married Gupta in 2007 at an Arya Samaj Mandir. However, her divorce from Jaidka had not been finalised at that time, rendering the later marriage legally void.
Gupta, a practising lawyer in Delhi, contended that Nishi had concealed the fact of her subsisting first marriage while filing complaints and had even misused blank cheques to extort money. He also argued that she filed multiple cases - including one under the Negotiable Instruments Act - all of which ended in his acquittal.
Court's Observations
Justice Krishna noted that the foundation of the FIR was the alleged marriage between Gupta and Nishi, but that marriage had already been declared null and void by the Family Court in May 2022. Still, she pointed out that Section 498A, which penalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives, can apply even to relationships that are “ostensibly marital” though legally invalid provided there is clear proof of cruelty or harassment.
In this case, the bench found none.
"The allegations are vague, general, and omnibus in nature," the judge remarked. "They focus primarily on unsubstantiated claims and broad threats without specific dates or circumstances."
Regarding the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, the Court underlined that no "entrustment of property" had been shown. A joint bank account, it said, could not by itself prove entrustment since both holders have equal access to funds.
The judge cited the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, stressing that when allegations are inherently improbable or vague, quashing the FIR is justified to prevent harassment.
She also took note that the trial court had already acquitted Gupta in the cheque bounce case based on the same allegations, and no independent evidence of misappropriation had been produced.
The Decision
Concluding that continuing the prosecution would amount to allowing the misuse of law meant for protecting women, the High Court quashed the FIR No. 73/2015 and all related proceedings.
"The entire complaint and evidence collected during the investigation, even if admitted in toto, would not be enough to prove an offence under Section 498A or Section 406 IPC," Justice Krishna ruled.
The petition was allowed, and the judge observed that sending the parties to trial would serve no purpose. All pending applications in the matter were disposed of accordingly.
The decision is yet another reminder, the Court implied, that while laws against domestic cruelty are essential, they cannot be allowed to become instruments of vendetta.
Case Title: Om Saran Gupta & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
