Section 498A IPC | Mental Cruelty Possible Even If In-Laws Reside Separately: Bombay High Court

"The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty … Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person … Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place," the court observed.

A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur dismissed with costs an application filed by relatives of a man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them instituted by his wife.

The complainant has alleged that the applicants demanded dowry as well as subjected her to cruelty. The applicants were booked under various provisions of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Advocate D. V. Mahajan for the applicants submitted that there is nothing to show that any of the applicants resided together with the complainant and her husband. Further, the applicants don't fall under the definition of relatives.

APP S. M. Ghodeswar for the State said that there is sufficient evidence for a prima facia case against the applicants.

The court noted that the allegations and the witness statements indicate that at some point or the other, the applicants gathered at the complainant’s marital residence. Further, they also talked personally or on phone with the complainant. During these encounters, the complaint alleged, applicants subjected her to humiliation, harassment, and cruelty.

"Here, in this case, for meting out mental cruelty to non-applicant no. 2, of course, in prima facie way, these applicants seems to have employed modern means of communication i.e. telephone etc. and on many occasions, they have also remained present in the company of non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed to not have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner," said the court.

The court said that there is a prima facie case from the allegations despite the applicants residing away from the complainant. Cruelty is not only physical but can also be mental, the court observed.

It noted that there are allegations against each applicant in the FIR and they are proved with statements, that is indicative of the mental cruelty handed out by them to the complainant.

According to the FIR, one of the applicants threatened that she will use her influence with the police to scuttle criminal proceedings against the complainant if she didn’t accept the "demand and obnoxious behavior of her husband".

The court said that this allegation is quite serious and is "all the more reason" to direct that the applicants be put on trial.

The court rejected the contention that the applicants are not relatives of the complainant. It relied on U. Suvetha v. State in which the Apex Court held that the term relative would mean any person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

The court accepted that no offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC would be made out against the other woman - one of the applicants, merely because complainant's husband had illicit relation with her. However, in this case, prima facie case is made out against that applicant not for her status as the other woman but in her capacity as cousin-sister of the husband, the court said.

The applicants contended that no significance could be attached to the allegations in the FIR. The court disagreed with this contention observing that FIR sets the criminal law and motion.

"…though usually not a substantive piece of evidence by itself, it (FIR) nevertheless forms a foundation of a criminal case. No strong edifice of a criminal case can be built unless its foundation is sound," the court observed.

If the FIR does not contain allegations of cruelty, no criminal case can be built against the accused; but if the foundation is strong, it would give rise to a strong criminal case which is the case in the present matter, the court observed.

The court said that applicants abused the process of law despite knowing that the allegations against them require consideration on merits. Therefore, it imposed cost of Rs. 10000/- on the applicants.

Case no. – Criminal Application (APL) No. 1660 of 2022

Case Title – SK and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 32

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment