Taking Custody Of Jewellery For Safety Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Supreme Court

Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court observed.

In this case, an FIR was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws under Sections 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Complainant's brother in law (who was employed in Texas in the United States of America) was arrayed as one of the accused. The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed an application filed by him for permission to travel back to the United States of America. 

""The short question in this appeal is, whether the Appellant can be denied his fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad, subject to possession of a valid passport, visa and other requisite travel documents, only because he is arrayed as accused in a complaint filed by his brother's wife against his brother being the husband of the complainant and his parents, particularly mother and that too when the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any criminal offence on the part of the Appellant. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari noted at the outset.

The court, examining the complaint, noted that there is nothing specific against the Appellant except the vague allegation that the Appellant and his mother, that is the complainant's mother-in-law kept her jewellery.

"The complainant has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-inlaw. There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the Appellant. It is not even alleged that the Appellant forcibly took away or misappropriated the complainant's jewellery or refused to return the same in spite of request. Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.", the court observed.

The court added that failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid vindictive retaliation from his brother (complainant's husband) cannot constitute cruelty on his part within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.

Allowing the appeal, the court deleted the condition imposed by the CJM of ' not to leave the country without prior permission of Court'. 

"The apprehension that the husband of the complainant (Accused No.1) who had been working in the U.S.A. might leave the country cannot be ground to deny the Appellant's prayer to go back to the U.S.A. to resume his duties in a Company in which he has been working for about 9/10 years. The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. There are no specific allegations against the Appellant.", the court added.

Click here to Read/Download Order