The Patna High Court has clarified that in cases under Section 498A IPC, the absence of physical injury despite serious allegations, combined with the lack of a sworn affidavit, renders the complaint legally unsustainable for arrest. This ruling reinforces the need for judicial scrutiny before permitting criminal proceedings based on domestic disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ashok Thakur, is accused in C.R. Case No. 89 of 2024 registered at PS Bheja, District Madhubani, for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant, Sumitra Devi, his wife of 18 years, alleges that he subjected her to mental and physical cruelty due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands, including Rs. 2.5 lakhs and a Splendor motorcycle. She further alleges that the petitioner attempted to set her on fire.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and complainant were married for 18 years as of the date of complaint
- The complainant allegedly lived with the petitioner without incident for 16 years before the dispute arose
- The complainant left the matrimonial home voluntarily and returned to her parental home
- The complaint was filed 10 days after her return to her parental home
- The complainant claims to have suffered burn injuries from the alleged fire incident, but no medical evidence or injury report was produced
- The complaint petition was not supported by any affidavit from the complainant
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record and claims clean antecedents
Procedural History
- 2024: C.R. Case No. 89 of 2024 registered at PS Bheja, Madhubani
- April 2026: Petitioner filed this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking anticipatory bail
- 22.04.2026: Hearing conducted before the Hon’ble Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
- 29.04.2026: Order passed granting anticipatory bail
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- The allegations are fabricated and motivated by family discord
- The complainant did not sustain any burn injury despite claiming to have been set on fire
- The complaint was filed only after 10 days of her leaving the matrimonial home
- The complaint lacks an affidavit, violating the mandate in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- The petitioner has no history of violence and is a family man with no criminal antecedents
For the Respondent/State
- The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail
- No specific counter-submissions were recorded beyond general opposition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. Case No. 89 of 2024.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an allegation under Section 498A IPC can sustain a criminal proceeding and justify arrest when the complainant alleges severe physical abuse but suffers no injury, and the complaint is not supported by an affidavit as required by the precedent in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2015 (6) SCC 287], where the Supreme Court held that complaints under Section 498A must be supported by an affidavit to ensure seriousness and deter frivolous litigation. The counsel argued that the absence of any medical evidence of burn injuries, despite a specific allegation of attempted arson, renders the complaint inherently improbable. The long period of marital harmony (16 years without incident) further undermined the credibility of the allegations. The petitioner’s clean antecedents and the fact that the complainant left the home voluntarily were presented as indicators of a non-criminal domestic dispute.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail prayer but did not submit any evidence, affidavits, or counter-affidavits to substantiate the allegations. No medical report, witness statement, or corroborative material was placed before the Court to support the claim of physical cruelty or attempted arson.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the complaint in light of the Supreme Court’s directive in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which emphasized that complaints under Section 498A must be supported by an affidavit to prevent misuse of the provision. The Court noted that the complainant’s allegation of being set on fire, if true, would have resulted in visible and medically verifiable injuries. The absence of any such injury, despite the complainant’s claim, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegation.
"The allegation as raised in paragraph-2 regarding putting this complainant on fire is apparently false, for the reason that she received no burn injury out of that."
The Court further observed that the complainant left the matrimonial home voluntarily and filed the complaint only after a 10-day interval, suggesting a retaliatory motive rather than genuine distress. The Court held that in the absence of an affidavit and corroborative evidence, the complaint cannot be treated as credible for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings leading to arrest.
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s clean antecedents and the fact that the marriage endured for 18 years without prior incident, reinforcing the conclusion that the complaint is likely an abuse of process.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Ashok Thakur in the event of his arrest or surrender before the trial court. He is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani, or the concerned court where C.R. Case No. 89 of 2024 is pending. The bail is subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS and must be complied with within four weeks of the order date.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Allegations Without Injury Are Not Sufficient for Arrest
- Practitioners must challenge Section 498A complaints where no medical evidence supports allegations of physical cruelty
- Absence of injury in cases alleging attempted arson, acid attack, or severe beating should be raised as a ground for quashing or bail
- Courts are now more likely to scrutinize the plausibility of allegations before permitting arrest
Affidavit Requirement Is Non-Negotiable
- A complaint under Section 498A without an affidavit is legally defective under Priyanka Srivastava
- Advocates must insist on affidavit production at the FIR or complaint stage
- Courts may dismiss or quash complaints outright if affidavits are not filed, even if the allegations appear serious on their face
Long Marital History Undermines Recent Allegations
- A long period of marital harmony (16+ years) without prior incident is a strong mitigating factor
- Courts may view sudden allegations after years of cohabitation as retaliatory or motivated
- This factor should be highlighted in bail applications and quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC/BNSS
