Supreme Court holds Section 7(3) Dowry Prohibition Act protects wife and family from prosecution based only on their dowry complaint.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the complaint of a wife and the statements made by her or her family members during investigation into dowry harassment cannot, by themselves, be used to prosecute them for the offence of “giving dowry” under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court held that Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act creates a statutory protection in favour of the person aggrieved by the dowry offence, and such statements cannot become the foundation for prosecution against the wife or her family members. However, the Court clarified that if independent evidence of giving dowry is available, a separate FIR may be registered in an appropriate case; the protection under Section 7(3) applies only where the prosecution is sought to be launched solely on the basis of the aggrieved person’s complaint or statements.

Summary: The petitioner-husband, Rahul Gupta, was facing FIR No. 03 of 2023 registered on the complaint of his wife, Radhika Gupta, for offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During investigation, the wife and her family members made statements referring to dowry having been given before marriage. The husband then filed a complaint seeking registration of a separate FIR against the wife and her family members, contending that since Section 3 penalises both giving and taking dowry, their statements amounted to admission of the offence of giving dowry. The Magistrate rejected his application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision, and the Chhattisgarh High Court declined interference. The Supreme Court examined the legislative history of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Joint Parliamentary Committee Report, and Section 7(3), which provides that a statement made by the person aggrieved shall not subject such person to prosecution under the Act. The Court also held that the Delhi High Court decision in Neera Singh had no precedential value because it ignored Section 7(3), and approved the later line of High Court decisions protecting the wife and her family from such retaliatory prosecution.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the petitioner’s attempt to prosecute his wife and her family members was based only on the wife’s complaint and the Section 161 CrPC statements of the wife and her relatives, and therefore the statutory protection under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act squarely applied. The Court found no ground to interfere with the orders of the Magistrate, Sessions Court, and High Court, though it upheld them on the reasoning laid down in the judgment. The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae and dismissed all pending applications.