Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 405
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Rahul Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
Station House Officer and others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13755 of 2025
Decided On : 16-04-2026
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sr. Adv. Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Saif Rizvi, Adv. Ms. Farhat Naim, Adv. Ms. Modoyia K., Adv. Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, AOR
Statements made by aggrieved parties under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act provide them immunity from prosecution for giving dowry, thus precluding registration of a separate FIR based solely on their statements.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3 - The petitioner contended that despite not taking dowry, he sought registration of an FIR against his wife and her family for 'giving' dowry; however, the Supreme Court held that statements by aggrieved parties are protected under Section 7(3) of the DP Act, hence no FIR could be registered against them. (Paras 11, 13, 21)
(B) Legal principles - The court reiterated that for registration of a second FIR, independent evidence must support the claims; relying only on statements from the complainants does not suffice to initiate prosecution under the DP Act. (Paras 20, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against his wife alleging dowry was received and sought a separate FIR, following which the original FIR filed by the wife for dowry harassment was already underway. (Paras 1, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's allegations as they were based solely on the statements from the wife, which attracted immunity under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The previous orders from lower courts regarding the dismissal of his applications were upheld. (Paras 21, 22)
Issues: Whether the FIR should be registered against the wife for 'giving' dowry based on her statements in the ongoing FIR, and the broader interpretation of Section 7(3) of the DB Act concerning the aggrieved party. (Paras 1, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court explained that under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, statements made by the aggrieved do not allow for prosecution against them; thus the petitioner's request for a new FIR did not meet the necessary criteria. (Paras 11, 20)
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The immunity of statements by the aggrieved under Section 7(3) of the DP Act bars prosecutions for giving dowry based solely on those statements (!) (!) . - For a second FIR to be registered under Section 3 DP Act, independent evidence is generally required; reliance on aggrieved parties’ statements alone is insufficient (!) . - A second FIR may be permissible in certain circumstances such as counter-complaints or rival versions, or when incidents are separate or involve larger conspiracies, as discussed in subsequent cases and the cited Rajasthan Surendra Rathore principle references (!) (!) . - The petition was dismissed; the Court held no merit in basing prosecution on the wife’s statements and upheld Section 7(3) immunity (!) (!) . - The judgment clarifies that Neera Singh (supra) does not control due to Section 7(3) protections, aligning with various High Court decisions upholding immunity (!) .
What is the effect of Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act on prosecuting aggrieved parties who provide statements regarding giving or taking dowry?
What are the conditions required for registering a second FIR for the offence of giving dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act, based on independent evidence versus statements by the aggrieved?
What principles govern when a second FIR can be registered in relation to a rival version, counter-claim, or separate incident as clarified by recent jurisprudence?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the matrimonial dispute and fir registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. conclusion on meritlessness of the petition and orders. (Para 8 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. analysis of the dowry prohibition act and implications of complaints. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. clarification on the registration of firs and immunity under section 7(3). (Para 11 , 13 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial perspective on previous case law regarding dowry allegations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Matrimonial relations having soured between the couple, the fallout was litigation and exchange of acrimonious allegations. FIR No. 03 of 2023 was registered on 07.01.2023 by the Mahila Thana, Ambikapur, on the complaint made by the wife, Radhika Gupta, respondent No. 7, against the husband, Rahul Gupta, the petitioner, and his family members for offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[For short, ‘IPC’] , and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 19612[For short, ‘the DP Act’]. The petitioner’s grievance is that a FIR was not registered on his complaint dated 25.12.2023, wherein he had alleged that the complaint and statements made by his wife and her family members amounted to acceptance of their giving dowry and that Section 3 of the DP Act criminalized both the ‘giving’ and the ‘taking’ of dowry, requiring registration of an FIR against them.
2. The petitioner’s endeavour to get an FIR registered failed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and then, in revision, before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. Thereupon, he approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2754 of 2024, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233[For short, ‘the BNSS’]. However, this attempt also met with failure as the High Court dismissed his petition on 23.04.2025. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present petition.
3. Upon hearing the petitioner, who appears as a party-in-person; the learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents; and the learned counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh, this Court, by order dated 22.01.2026, requested Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, learned counsel, to assist the Court as amicus curiae.
4. Facts relevant for the purposes of this order may now be set out. The marriage between the couple was solemnised on 24.11.2007 at Raipur, Chhattisgarh. They have three children, two daughters and a son, who are stated to be residing with the father at Raipur. The wife left the matrimonial home on 25.12.2021 and returned to her parental home. She sought a divorce while the husband sought restitution of conjugal rights.
5. FIR No. 03 of 2023 was registered on 07.01.2022 at the behest of the wife against the petitioner and his family members. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734[For short, ‘the CrPC’], the wife spoke of dowry being discussed at the time of her marriage and the payment of dowry before the marriage itself. Similar statements were made by her family members. After completion of the investigation in relation to the said FIR, chargesheet dated 07.01.2023 was filed against the petitioner and his parents for offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of the DP Act. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed written complaint dated 25.12.2023 seeking registration of a separate FIR against his wife and her family members. His allegation was that though dowry was not taken by him and his family, the statements made by his wife and her family members to the effect that they had given dowry constituted the offence of ‘giving’ dowry under Section 3 of the DP Act. He also made certain other allegations which are not relevant for our purposes presently.
6. As his complaint failed to evoke the expected response, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. This application was
