498A Case & Section 85 BNS: Supreme Court Guide to Bail, Quashing & Legal Remedies
Stuck
in 498A? Or Need Legal Protection?
A Supreme Court Guide for Husbands, Wives & Families
Blog by:
Jayprakash B. Somani,
Advocate, Supreme Court of India & IP,
Cell: PA 9322188701
www.jayprakashsomani.com
www.supremecourtlawfirm.com
Supreme Court of India
Important terminology update: Since 1 July
2024, the IPC has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS),
and the CrPC by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). What is
popularly still called a “498A case” is now ordinarily a case under Section
85 read with Section 86 BNSwhen the alleged offence is governed by the new
laws. Older offences/FIRs continue to be governed by the applicable old law
depending on the date and transitional provisions.
This area of law requires two principles to operate
simultaneously:
A genuine victim of matrimonial cruelty must receive
effective protection and justice.
and
A person who is not prima facie involved must not be
subjected to criminal prosecution merely because he or she is related to the
husband.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has consistently
attempted to preserve both principles.
1.
What Was Section 498A IPC?
Section 498A IPC was introduced in 1983 to
address cruelty against married women, particularly cruelty associated with
unlawful demands for property or valuable security/dowry. The Supreme Court has
recently reaffirmed that legislative purpose.
The offence applied where:
?
the accused was the husband or relative of
the husband; and
?
the woman was subjected to legally defined “cruelty.”
It carried punishment of:
imprisonment up to 3 years + fine.
2.
What Is the Current Law?
Section 85 BNS — Cruelty by Husband or Relative
Section 85 BNS substantially carries forward the former
Section 498A IPC.
It provides punishment of:
up to 3 years' imprisonment and fine.
Section 86 BNS defines “cruelty”
There are two principal limbs.
A. Serious wilful conduct
Conduct of such a nature as is likely to:
?
drive the woman to commit suicide; or
?
cause grave injury; or
?
cause danger to life, limb or health, whether
mental or physical.
B. Dowry/property-related harassment
Harassment intended to coerce:
?
the woman; or
?
her relative
to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable
security, or harassment because such demand has not been met.
3.
Very Important: Every Marital Dispute Is Not “Cruelty”
This distinction is central.
A marriage may involve:
?
arguments;
?
incompatibility;
?
differences over money;
?
disagreements about relatives;
?
occasional quarrels;
?
separation;
?
disagreements regarding household expenditure.
These facts do not automatically constitute Section
85 BNS / Section 498A IPC cruelty.
The alleged conduct must satisfy the statutory
ingredients.
The Supreme Court in Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1152, stressed that vague allegations
without specific details of time, place, manner and nature of harassment may be
insufficient to sustain a Section 498A prosecution.
4.
Genuine Case vs Misuse — The Correct Approach
It is dangerous to begin with either assumption:
“Every 498A complaint is false.”
or:
“Every 498A complaint must be true.”
The proper legal approach is:
Examine the ingredients of the offence and the evidence.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged both:
?
the serious social problem of cruelty against
women; and
?
the possibility of abuse of criminal process
through vague or omnibus allegations.
In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of
India, (2018) 10 SCC 443, the Court addressed the balance between
protecting genuine victims and preventing misuse.
5.
The Two-Limb Test Every Lawyer Should Apply
For every allegation, ask:
Question 1
What exactly did the accused do?
Question 2
Does that conduct satisfy Section 86(a) or 86(b)
BNS?
For example:
“My in-laws harassed me.”
is an allegation.
But:
“On 15 March, at the matrimonial residence, X demanded
?10 lakh from my father for a vehicle and threatened to send me out of the
house if the amount was not paid.”
is a much more specific allegation capable of being
investigated against the identified person.
Specificity is important for both sides: it
helps a genuine complainant establish the case and helps an innocent accused
demonstrate that there is no specific role attributed to him or her.
6.
Who Can Be Accused?
Section 85 specifically refers to:
?
husband;
?
relative of husband.
It does not create automatic criminal liability
for the entire extended family.
Therefore, merely being:
?
father-in-law;
?
mother-in-law;
?
brother-in-law;
?
sister-in-law;
?
other relative;
does not itself establish guilt.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against
mechanically implicating every family member.
7.
Major Supreme Court Safeguard Against “Roping In” Relatives
Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: (2012) 10 SCC 741
The Supreme Court cautioned against prosecution of
relatives based merely upon general allegations in matrimonial disputes.
Principle
There should be allegations showing the specific
role and involvement of the particular accused.
8. Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar
Citation: (2022) 6 SCC 599
This is one of the most important authorities for
in-laws.
The Supreme Court held that general and omnibus
allegations against relatives, without specific allegations of their
involvement, can amount to abuse of the process of law.
The principle has been repeatedly applied in subsequent
cases.
Practical significance
If an FIR simply says:
“My husband and all his family members tortured me for
dowry.”
the lawyer should examine:
?
What did the father-in-law do?
?
What did the mother-in-law do?
?
What did the sister-in-law do?
?
Where?
?
When?
?
How?
?
What demand?
?
What evidence?
9.
A Major Recent Authority — Dara Lakshmi Narayana
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana
Citation: (2025) 3 SCC 735
The Court warned against the recurring tendency to
implicate every member of the husband's family in matrimonial disputes.
It held, in substance, that merely naming relatives
without specific allegations indicating active involvement should be stopped at
an early stage; generalized accusations unsupported by particularized
allegations cannot ordinarily form the basis of criminal prosecution.
Its effect
This judgment strengthens the case for early judicial
scrutiny where:
?
allegations are vague;
?
relatives live separately;
?
no particular overt act is attributed;
?
no specific dowry demand is attributed;
?
the allegations are substantially directed only
against the husband.
10.
Very Recent Supreme Court Development — Shobhit Kumar Mittal
Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1152
The Supreme Court quashed proceedings involving
Sections 323 and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
where the allegations against the brother-in-law were vague and omnibus.
The Court noted that the FIR did not provide specific:
?
dates;
?
times;
?
places;
?
manner of harassment;
?
details of the alleged demand;
?
specific role of the accused.
It held that merely alleging mental harassment
concerning dowry, without concrete particulars or supporting material, did not
satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A in the circumstances before it.
Practical lesson
“Omnibus allegation” is not a magic phrase.
The defence must demonstrate exactly what is missing
from the FIR/charge-sheet.
11.
Mange Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 962
This is another important recent Supreme Court decision
involving Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Supreme Court considered the allegations against
the father-in-law and examined the surrounding circumstances, including the
timing of the FIR, earlier counselling and subsequent divorce. It relied upon
the principle that family members should not be unnecessarily implicated
without specific allegations.
The Court also referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana
and observed that criminal law should not become an instrument of harassment.
12.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Purbey v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2026 INSC 212
In March 2026, the Supreme Court quashed proceedings
against relatives where the allegations were general and omnibus and did not
attribute specific overt acts to them.
The Court considered proceedings involving Sections
341, 323, 498A and 34 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
Significance
The judgment reinforces:
Mere family relationship is not a substitute for
specific criminal allegations.
13.
Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 INSC 412
The Supreme Court considered allegations under Sections
494 and 498A IPC against the husband's relatives.
The Court examined whether the allegations against the
relatives were distinct from those against the husband and whether continuation
of proceedings against them would constitute abuse of process.
This is particularly useful when:
?
allegations against husband are specific;
?
allegations against relatives are generic;
?
relatives had limited or no involvement in the
matrimonial household.
14.
The Famous Arnesh Kumar Safeguard
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Citation: (2014) 8 SCC 273
This is the must-know arrest judgment in 498A
litigation.
The Supreme Court recognised the potential for
unnecessary arrests and issued safeguards governing arrest in offences
punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, including 498A.
The basic principle
Registration of a 498A case does not automatically
mean arrest.
The police must independently consider whether arrest
is necessary in accordance with the statutory requirements.
15.
Current Arrest Law — BNSS Section 35
For cases governed by the BNSS, arrest powers are
principally dealt with under Section 35 BNSS.
The lawyer must read Section 35 together with the
Supreme Court's arrest jurisprudence.
For the accused:
Ask immediately:
?
Has an FIR been registered?
?
Which sections?
?
Is arrest actually necessary?
?
Has a notice to appear been issued?
?
Has the accused cooperated?
?
Is there a risk of tampering with evidence?
?
Is there a risk of absconding?
?
Has the investigating officer recorded the
required reasons?
The important point remains:
Non-bailable
? automatic arrest.
16.
Anticipatory Bail
Under the BNSS, Section 482 governs directions
for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
The corresponding former CrPC provision was Section
438 CrPC.
Husband/family member fearing arrest should act quickly.
Possible forums:
?
Sessions Court;
?
High Court;
depending upon the facts, jurisdiction and procedural
stage.
Bail strategy should demonstrate:
?
permanent residence;
?
cooperation with investigation;
?
no flight risk;
?
no threat to complainant/witnesses;
?
no need for custodial interrogation;
?
documentary nature of dispute, where applicable;
?
specific absence of allegations against
particular relatives;
?
upcoming campaign
