HARSHEETA THAKUR Vs THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
- Citation2025 SCC OnLine Del 6293
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An FIR naming a distant relative in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment and cruelty may be quashed as against that relative where: (i) the complainant does not object to quashing; (ii) the specific allegations against that relative are minor and peripheral, such as incidental acts of property damage rather than core dowry-related offences; (iii) the relative was young and vulnerable at the time of the alleged incidents; and (iv) involvement of the relative appears to stem from distant blood association with the principal accused rather than direct participation in the primary wrong alleged.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR
no. 357/2024 dated 14.08.2024 registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all proceedings emanating therefrom. 2.
The petitioner is the niece of the complainant (through the
complainant’s husband) and has been included as one of the six persons against whom allegations have been levelled in the subject FIR. 3.
It is submitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Mittal, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, that the allegations levelled in the subject FIR in terms of abuse, harassment, cruelty, and dowry demands are primarily
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHILPI W.P.(CRL) 167/2025 Signing Date:29.09.2025 15:49:00
Page 1 of 3
against the complainant’s husband, his parents, and his sisters. 4.
He points out that specific allegations against the present
petitioner only have been levelled to the extent of her being involved in the destruction of CCTV cameras in the complainant’s marital home as well as locking up of furniture therein with the intention to inconvenience the complainant. 5.
Counsel for the complainant/ respondent no. 2 submits that the
complainant does not object to the quashing of the present FIR qua the present petitioner, and that she does not wish to press the allegations levelled against the petitioner, considering that at the time of occurrence of the incidents described in the FIR, the petitioner was only around 18 years of age and was still in school, and that she too was going through the traumatic experience of losing her father. 6.
The evils of dowry harassment and cruelty are a pestilence to
the sanctum that is marriage. Undoubtedly, they must be dealt with in utmost seriousness. However, the attempt to rid society of these evils must be balanced with the rights of those innocents who may be roped into the dispute purely by distant association with the accused through blood. 7.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of
involving distant relatives in matrimonial disputes in a catena of judgments including Rajesh Chaddha vs. State of U.P1 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana2. 8.
In light of no objections being raised on behalf of the
complainant to the prayers contained in the present petition, the age and circumstances of the petitioner at the time of the incident as 1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 (2025) 3 SCC 735 Signature Not Verified 2
Signed By:SHILPI W.P.(CRL) 167/2025 Signing Date:29.09.2025 15:49:00
Page 2 of 3
detailed in the FIR, the lack of significant allegations levelled against her, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it fit to quash FIR no. 357/2024 registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on 14.08.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom only to the extent of the involvement of the present petitioner. 9.
Present applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of
accordingly.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J. SEPTEMBER 26, 2025/AS/av
Signature Not Verified Signed By:SHILPI W.P.(CRL) 167/2025 Signing Date:29.09.2025 15:49:00
Page 3 of 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free