Women were mostly the victims of patriarchy. From abuse by their husband to in-laws, relatives, and society, they faced criticism, violence, and dominance from everyone. Recognising the vulnerable reality of this section of society, the law created Section 498A of the IPC (now Section 85 of the BNS), protecting women from mistreatment, especially by their families.
But in past years, society might still not have changed for many women, but some have taken a step forward by misusing Section 498A of the IPC. What once protected them has now become one of the easiest ways to pull the husband’s family down and exploit the protection.
The law has seen this too, and with many judicial examples, it has clearly paved the way for saving the victims. When allegations of cruelty or unlawful demands are false, exaggerated, or unsupported by evidence, the accused have legal remedies to challenge the proceedings.
In this blog, we will learn about the cases that form the backbone of trust in justice, the remedies victims seek in cases of false allegations, and more to help you understand this section in real life.
*Please note that Section 498A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) has been replaced by Section 85 of the BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), effective from 2024. However, as per the reader’s regular understanding, the old section is used with updated information in brackets. Also note that both sections are similar, and wherever there are changes, this blog will highlight those parts as well.
As the intent of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is clear so far, let’s understand what it is.
It criminalises cruelty inflicted upon a married woman by her husband or his relatives. Statutory “cruelty” covers two primary categories:
Feature | Details |
Offence Type | Cognizable (police can register FIR) & Non-Bailable |
Maximum Punishment | Imprisonment up to 3 years, plus fine |
Trial Court | Magistrate of the First Class |
Reporting Authority | Aggrieved woman, her parents, siblings, or persons related by blood/marriage |
Ordinary marital discord, incompatibility, or heated disagreements do not inevitably meet the statutory definition of cruelty unless they result in severe mental or physical injury or stem from unlawful property demands.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC, effective July 1, 2024. The legal provisions transitioned as follows:
Under Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), any FIR, investigation, or judicial proceeding initiated prior to July 1, 2024, continues under the IPC and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provisions. Cases registered on or after July 1, 2024, follow the BNS and BNSS frameworks.
Understanding the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the BNS) requires looking for procedural or factual inconsistencies in the complaint. Circumstances warranting close scrutiny include:
Certain factors often raise suspicion, but courts evaluate them within context rather than treating them as automatic proof of falsehood:
Statistical Context: Acquittal rates in 498A (section 85 of BNS) cases reflect various legal factors, including lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, out-of-court compromises, or witness turnarounds. A trial ending in acquittal does not automatically convert the original complaint into a proven false case without judicial findings of fabrication.
When faced with a complaint or notice, taking systematic legal steps prevents escalation:
Navigating these cases creates substantial pressure, particularly when addressing mental harassment as a man. Maintaining a central case file and an explicit deadline calendar helps manage both procedural timelines and personal stress.
Situation | Recommended Legal Remedy | Practical Limit/Distinction |
Fear of Arrest | Anticipatory Bail/BNSS Safeguards | Protection from custody; does not dismiss the FIR |
Already Arrested | Regular Bail Application | Grants temporary liberty; trial continues |
Active Investigation | Submission of Defence Material to IO | IO evaluates proof; police cannot self-quash an FIR |
Unsubstantiated Charges | High Court Quashing Petition | Courts rarely weigh disputed oral testimony at this stage |
Pre-Trial Evaluation | Application for Discharge | Evaluates existing charge-sheet records before framing charges |
Ongoing Trial | Full Trial Defence & Cross-Examination | The prosecution retains the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt |
Mutual Settlement | High Court Quashing via Compromise | Private agreements must be filed and accepted by the court |
Pre-arrest protection under Section 438 CrPC (or Section 482 BNSS) guards against arbitrary detention. Under directives established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, police officers cannot automatically arrest an accused under offences punishable by up to seven years without issuing a formal notice of appearance and detailing written reasons for custody.
If an arrest violates statutory guidelines, counsel can present non-compliance before the magistrate to seek immediate bail or judicial reprimand.
During an active investigation, the accused can submit a detailed representation along with physical proof (such as work logs, passport entry stamps, or financial receipts) to the Investigating Officer (IO).
If the IO concludes that the allegations lack evidence, they may file a Closure Report/Final Report under Section 173 CrPC (or Section 193 BNSS). However, the magistrate makes the ultimate decision on whether to accept the closure report or issue a protest notice to the complainant.
Under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS), the High Court has inherent powers to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the court process.
Quashing petitions generally succeed when:
Filing a quashing petition does not automatically stay an ongoing police investigation unless the High Court explicitly issues an interim stay order.
If a case proceeds past the investigation stage, the accused can file an application for discharge under Section 239/227 CrPC (or Section 262/250 BNSS). A discharge application argues that the charge sheet, even if taken at face value, lacks sufficient grounds to proceed to trial.
If the court frames charges, the matter moves to trial, where the defence challenges prosecution witnesses through cross-examination and presents defence witnesses.
When parties resolve underlying matrimonial disputes through mediation, criminal proceedings must be formally closed. Because Section 498A (85 o BNS) is non-compoundable in most states, a private compromise alone does not terminate an FIR. The parties must approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash the proceedings based on mutual settlement.
Proof Material | Facts Established | Important Limitation |
FIR & Charge-Sheet Copies | Exact claims and specific roles attributed | Discrepancies require judicial assessment |
Chat Logs & Emails | Context of relationship and true communication timeline | Isolated excerpts may omit crucial context |
Employment & Travel Records | Absence from the place of alleged incident | Separate residence does not rule out electronic demands |
Bank & Financial Statements | Actual nature of financial transactions | Payments alone do not verify the underlying intent |
Medical Records & Reports | Presence or absence of physical injuries | Lack of physical marks does not disprove mental cruelty |
Independent Witness Proof | Direct observation of interactions | Witness credibility is tested during cross-examination |
Complete, Unedited Chat Export & Call Data Records
↓
Certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam/Section 65B of the Evidence Act, as applicable
↓
Legal Review by Counsel Before Court Submission
Always retain original storage media and export complete chat threads rather than partial screenshots. Electronic evidence submitted in court must comply with certification requirements under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (or Section 63B of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
Judgment & Citation | Core Principle Established | Legal Limitation |
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 281/AIR 2005 SC 3100 | The Supreme Court held that the constitutional validity of Section 498A cannot be struck down merely because it may be abused. The Court labeled the provision “legal terrorism” when misused for personal vendettas. | The ruling upholds the statutory law while directing courts and police to scrutinise frivolous complaints carefully. |
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 | Mandated that arrests under Section 498A must follow strict procedural checks under Section 41A CrPC, prohibiting automatic arrests upon filing an FIR. | Does not grant complete immunity from arrest if the accused refuses to comply with notices or evades investigation. |
Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 INSC 953) | The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings where the FIR against family members was lodged as a retaliatory measure to settle personal scores. | Quashing relief depends entirely on proving that the specific FIR lacks sub-ingredients or is demonstrably retaliatory. |
*Please note that the above cases were registered before 1st July, 2024. That’s why they were all cases under IPC Section 498A.
Courts have intervened in Section 85 BNS cases where allegations were vague, lacked specific acts, or did not establish the required ingredients of cruelty.
Case | Court & Year | What the Court Found | Misuse Highlighted |
Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh | Chhattisgarh High Court, 2026 | Allegations against the husband and relatives were vague, omnibus, and inconsistent, with no specific incidents or overt acts of cruelty or dowry demand. The proceedings were quashed. | General allegations without specific acts or supporting circumstances |
Shyam Narayan Lal v. State of Jharkhand | Jharkhand High Court, 2025 | The alleged conduct did not satisfy the statutory definition of cruelty under Section 86 BNS, and there was no allegation of an unlawful demand. The proceedings were quashed. | Invoking Section 85 where the alleged conduct does not meet the legal definition of cruelty |
Deepak @ Ramdas Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2026 | Allegations against distant relatives living separately were vague and lacked specific material connecting them to the alleged offences. Proceedings against them were quashed. | Implicating distant relatives without specific allegations or evidence of involvement |
These decisions do not mean that every Section 85 BNS complaint is false. They show that vague, general, or legally insufficient allegations cannot automatically justify criminal proceedings, particularly against relatives who have no clearly stated role in the alleged cruelty.
If an investigation or trial concludes that allegations were knowingly fabricated, the affected individual has legal avenues to pursue recourse:
Under Section 215 BNSS (formerly Section 195 CrPC), offences relating to false evidence in court require a written complaint filed directly by the presiding court, rather than a private police FIR.
An acquitted person may file a civil suit for malicious prosecution to claim damages for reputation loss, legal expenses, and emotional distress. Winning this suit requires proving that the complainant acted with express malice and without reasonable cause.
With a changing society, new cases, and judicial precedents, the law has evolved.
A complaint under Section 498A IPC or Section 85 BNS can be stressful, but a person facing false, exaggerated, or unsupported allegations is not without legal remedies. The right approach is to understand the stage of the case, preserve relevant evidence, follow the required procedure, and seek timely legal advice. Depending on the circumstances, remedies may include bail, quashing, discharge, or a proper defence during trial.
The key is not to react in panic or assume that every allegation is automatically false. Courts look at the specific facts, individual roles, evidence, and legal ingredients of cruelty before deciding whether proceedings should continue. If you understand your position early and choose the remedy that fits your case, you can protect your rights while allowing the legal process to take its course.
Section 498A IPC was the earlier provision dealing with cruelty by a husband or his relatives. For offences governed by the new criminal laws, Section 85 BNS now addresses the same core offence, while Section 86 BNS defines “cruelty.” The applicable law depends on when the alleged offence occurred and the transitional provisions.
No. A marital disagreement, incompatibility, or ordinary argument does not automatically constitute cruelty under Section 85 BNS. The alleged conduct must fall within the statutory meaning of cruelty under Section 86 BNS, such as wilful conduct causing serious harm or harassment connected with an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
Yes, a relative may seek discharge when the charge-sheet material does not provide sufficient grounds to proceed against them. The court considers the allegations and material against that particular accused rather than treating every family member as equally involved.
Yes. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, particularly where the allegations do not disclose the offence, are legally insufficient, or continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Quashing is fact-specific and is not granted merely because the accused disputes the allegations.
No. An acquittal means the prosecution did not establish guilt to the required criminal standard. It does not, by itself, prove that the original complaint was deliberately fabricated. A separate finding or proceeding concerning a knowingly false complaint may require additional proof.
Yes. Separate residence can be relevant, particularly when the complaint does not identify specific acts by those relatives. However, living separately does not automatically exclude liability if there is specific material alleging their involvement in the conduct covered by section 498A of the IPC (now Section 85 of the BNS).
An accused should avoid threatening or contacting the complainant, deleting potential evidence, ignoring police or court directions, or posting details of the dispute publicly. Preserving records and following legal advice is generally safer than taking retaliatory action.
Yes. Relevant chats, emails, and other electronic records can help establish the context and chronology of events. Their evidentiary value depends on authenticity, completeness, relevance, and compliance with the applicable requirements for electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (prev. IPC).
Not simply by withdrawing it privately. The effect of withdrawal depends on the procedural stage and the applicable law. Since Section 85 BNS (prev. 498A IPC) is not ordinarily treated as a privately compoundable offence, an appropriate court process may be required to bring criminal proceedings to an end.
The investigating agency may submit an appropriate final report when the investigation does not disclose sufficient evidence to support prosecution. The Magistrate then considers that report and may accept it or take further action according to law.
Advocate Priya Paul, a proactive Delhi-based lawyer, leads a skilled team and shares legal insights through her blog to help readers navigate the law.
Have Any Questions?
As per the Bar Council of India’s rules, advocates are not allowed to advertise or solicit clients, and this site is intended solely for information sharing.
By clicking the button “I Agree,” you accept that:
If you wish to get additional information, please feel free to connect with Advocate Priya Paul at 9560744478 or advocatepriyapaul25@gmail.com
