Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code — subjecting a married woman to cruelty by her husband or his relatives — is now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the definition of cruelty carried into Section 86. The text is substantially unchanged. The offence remains cognizable and non-bailable, punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
The provision and its new number
Section 86 BNS defines cruelty as any wilful conduct of a nature likely to drive the woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (mental or physical); or harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
Judgments delivered under Section 498A remain fully applicable. The number changed; the jurisprudence did not.
Why the safeguards exist
Two things are true at once, and any honest account of this provision has to hold both.
The provision was enacted in 1983 in response to a real and documented pattern of dowry-related cruelty and deaths, and it continues to be the principal protection available to women facing it. Cases of genuine and severe cruelty are brought under it every day.
At the same time, because the offence is cognizable and non-bailable and typically names the husband along with his parents, siblings and sometimes distant relatives, it has also been used as a lever in matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court has said so repeatedly — most recently and pointedly in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024).
The response of the courts has not been to weaken the provision. It has been to insist that it is applied with particularity: that allegations be specific, that arrest not be automatic, and that persons roped in without a role be relieved early.
Arnesh Kumar and the notice procedure
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 the Supreme Court, dealing specifically with Section 498A, directed that for offences punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, police officers shall not arrest automatically. They must first satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary under the parameters in what was Section 41 CrPC, record reasons in writing, and otherwise issue a notice of appearance.
The notice procedure is now Section 35 BNSS (formerly Section 41A CrPC). The Arnesh Kumar directions are binding and non-compliance exposes the officer to departmental action and the magistrate to censure.
In practice: if you receive a Section 35 notice, attend. Attendance on notice is the strongest material available in any subsequent bail or quashing application, and non-attendance destroys it.
Omnibus allegations and Dara Lakshmi Narayana
The recurring judicial complaint is not about the provision but about the drafting of complaints under it: a single undifferentiated paragraph alleging that “the accused persons harassed the complainant for dowry”, with five or eight named relatives and no allegation attributing any specific act to any specific person.
The Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana quashed proceedings on precisely that basis, observing that the provision is increasingly invoked against husbands and their families as a means of settling personal scores, and cautioning courts against allowing vague and generalised allegations to sustain a prosecution.
That decision sits in a line running through Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, each addressing the mechanical implication of relatives, particularly those living separately or abroad.
The operative test
Are there specific, particularised allegations against this accused — what act, on what date, in what circumstance? Where the answer is no, and the person is named only by relationship, the courts have been willing to intervene.
On the institutional side, the Family Welfare Committee mechanism directed in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017) was subsequently set aside in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 443, which held that such committees had no statutory basis. Several High Courts have since issued their own directions on pre-arrest procedure; check what applies locally.
Quashing under Section 528 BNSS
The High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings, formerly Section 482 CrPC, is now Section 528 BNSS. The governing guidelines remain those in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335).
Two routes arise commonly in this context. First, quashing on the merits, where the allegations even taken at face value disclose no offence against the particular accused. Second, quashing on the basis of a settlement — the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 recognised that matrimonial offences are predominantly private in character, and that where the parties have genuinely settled, continuing the prosecution serves no purpose.
Settlement-based quashing is now a standard part of comprehensive matrimonial settlements, usually recorded alongside the divorce by mutual consent and the maintenance terms.
If a complaint has been filed against you
- Do not contact the complainant. It will be characterised as intimidation and it is the fastest way to lose bail.
- Attend on any Section 35 notice, with counsel.
- Consider anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS promptly, particularly for relatives living separately or abroad.
- Assemble the record — residence proof for relatives who did not live with the couple, travel records, communications, and any evidence of the sequence of events preceding the complaint. Timing frequently matters: complaints filed immediately after a divorce petition or a custody application are examined closely.
- Take mediation seriously. A large majority of these matters end in a comprehensive settlement, and the parties who do best are the ones who engage early rather than after two years of proceedings.
If you are the complainant
- Be specific. A complaint that sets out particular incidents with dates, places and named individuals is far stronger — and far more likely to survive a quashing petition — than an omnibus one.
- Name only those with a role. Including every relative dilutes the complaint and is now the commonest reason proceedings are quashed wholesale.
- Preserve contemporaneous material — medical records, messages, photographs, witnesses, and any prior complaint made to police, a counsellor or a family elder.
- Understand the parallel remedies. A protection order and residence order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and maintenance under Section 144 BNSS are civil in nature and often deliver practical relief faster than the criminal case does.
This is general information, not advice on your case
The law summarised above is stated as at the date of publication and applies differently to different facts. Nothing here creates an advocate–client relationship. If the subject affects you, speak to a lawyer about your own position — request a consultation or call +91 83685 88897.