The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has ruled that merely selling a matrimonial house cannot, by itself, constitute dowry harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Sandeep Sharma made the observation while quashing an FIR registered against Rahul Dadhwal and his family members in a matrimonial dispute.
The Court found that the allegations made by the complainant did not disclose any demand for dowry or harassment linked to unlawful monetary demands, which are essential ingredients for attracting Section 498A IPC.
The complainant alleged that her marriage with petitioner Rahul Dadhwal was solemnised in October 2021. According to the FIR, she was later left at her parental home by her husband and in-laws, who allegedly did not take her back thereafter.
She further claimed that when she visited her matrimonial residence in Delhi along with her father, the house was found locked and she later discovered that the family had shifted elsewhere. Her belongings were allegedly still in possession of her in-laws.
Based on these allegations, FIR No. 99 dated June 1, 2022 was registered at Baijnath Police Station under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC.
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the couple filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court at Palampur. Their marriage was dissolved after both parties stated that no claims remained pending against each other.
The complainant opposed the plea for quashing and argued that dissolution of marriage would not automatically end criminal liability. She also contended that certain gold ornaments and belongings had not yet been returned to her.
The petitioners, however, argued that the dispute had already been amicably settled and that the allegations in the FIR did not satisfy the legal requirements of Section 498A IPC.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court examined the FIR and noted that there was no allegation that the accused persons had demanded dowry or harassed the complainant for unlawful monetary demands.
Referring to the prosecution allegations that the matrimonial house in Delhi had been sold, the Court observed:
“Such act, if any, cannot be construed to be act of demanding dowry.”
The Court held that the “basic ingredients” required to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC were completely absent in the present case. It further observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings would unnecessarily subject the accused to a prolonged criminal trial likely to fail.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, Kangra district.
The accused persons were also acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Case Title: Rahul Dadhwal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Cr.MMO No. 1083 of 2025
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Judge: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Date of Decision: May 5, 2026
