How to appreciate evidence if there is plea that police had torn original statement of mother of victim?

 Coming now to the second submission that the police authorities had torn the original statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 and prepared the second one with a view to file a false case against the appellant has also no merit for the reason that firstly, the appellant did not raise this plea before the Courts below and secondly, on perusal of the evidence of PW- 1, it is clear that what was torn off was one unsigned paper in which only few lines were recorded. This could be due to various reasons and no such suggestion was put to witnesses on this issue and lastly, P.W-1 stated that her signed statement was used in trial.
Non Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Tarabai vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 January, 2015

Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla, Abhay Manohar Sapre

                                                                        

    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.552 OF 2012

   Citation:AIR 2015 SC (SUPP)424

Print Page

When prosecution under S 498A of IPC can be quashed against family members of husband?

 After a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.

Supreme Court of India

Chandralekha vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai

Print Page

When court can quash prosecution U/S 498A of IPC against relative of husband who are residing separate from husband?

 On perusal of FIR, it is apparent that applicants 4 to 14 are residing separately. On its face, FIR does not constitute any offence against applicants 4 to 14. No specific role is attributed to each of them. There is just a casual reference of the names of these applicants in FIR. In this premise, nothing can be achieved, if proceedings arising out of the said FIR are allowed to be continued to the extent of applicants 4 to 14. We find it a fit case to exercise discretion in respect to these applicants.

Equivalent Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)4211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 646 of 2015

Decided On: 29.04.2015

 Kumar
Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:T.V. Nalawade and I.K. Jain, JJ.

Print Page

Husband insisting wife to do labour work whether amounts to cruelty punishable U/S 498A of IPC?

Mr.Solshe, learned counsel for the appellants,
submits that the evidence on record would clearly
show   that   there   was   no   demand   of   any   valuables.
Even   PW   5   –   Kailas   Patil,   neighbor   of   present
appellants,   examined   by   the   prosecution,   would
show   that   there   was   no   demand   of   any   valuables.
The   evidence   would   further   show   that   the
appellants   are   menial   labours.   Even   at   the

insistence   of   the   deceased,  the  deceased   and   the
appellant   no.1   –   husband,   had   started   residing
separately.   Even, in order to pacify her she was
once   kept   at   her   parents'   house.   If,   on   some
occasions, the appellants had pressed the deceased
to   join   them   for   doing   menial   work   for   earning
wages, the same cannot be termed as cruelty.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.326 OF 2001 
Bharat Gangaram Desle (Patil),

Versus
   The State of Maharashtra 
­­
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE  : AUGUST 12, 2015    
Citation;2015 ALLMR (cri)4155

Print Page

When prosecution against relative of husband U/S 498 of IPC can be quashed?

Equivalent Citation: 2013ALLMR(Cri)4288, 2014(3)BomCR(Cri)84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application Nos. 2286 of 2010 and 4390 of 2012

Decided On: 03.10.2013

Appellants: Milind
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:K.U. Chandiwal and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.

Criminal - Charge Sheet - Legality thereof - Challenged - Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present application filed to challenge legality of charge-sheet - Whether proceedings against Applicant liable to be quashed - Held, proceedings under Section 498A of I.P.C. were brazenly used to corner Applicant since he was already employed person, enjoying position as Judge - None of statements of witnesses specifically referred any demand by Applicant - No sufficient evidence to show demand of money by Applicant - Therefore, prosecution, qua Applicant was quashed and set aside - Application allowed.

Print Page

Whether wife from second marriage can be treated as relative for purposes of S 498A of IPC?

From the view of the Kerala High Court, the relationship of a man with a woman in a case of mistress, she cannot get the status of wife but when a lady enters into 2 nd marriage and the lady is treated as a wife by the husband, relative, friends or society will be construed as a relative of husband for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd marriage with another woman may be treated as void for the purpose of Hindu Succession Act or for Hindu Marriage Act, but for the purpose of section 498A, if the 2 nd marriage with another woman be treated as void marriage, in that situation, Section 494 of the Indian penal Code will be difficult to be applied because Section 494 presupposes a 2 nd marriage and, as such if the society and relative arising from the 2nd marriage, the woman is recognized as wife, then it is very difficult to brush aside that the 2nd wife will not be relative for the purpose of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has taken a view that the Court should liberally consider the word or expression relating to the person committing the offence so as to rope in not only those persons of faulty marriages but also any one who has undergone some or other forms of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband.

 On the analysis of the aforesaid judgment, it is completely clear that it cannot be brushed aside the status of a woman arising from 2nd marriage as a wife when the husband, relative or society considered and recognized the 2nd wife as a wife. If that be the situation it cannot be said that the 2nd wives are excluded from the purview of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. So the proposition advanced by the petitioners that 19 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17039 of 2011 P19 / 25 the petitioner no.3 who has entered into a marriage with Rakesh Kumar Singh and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be treated as a relative for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code of Rakesh Kumar Singh is not acceptable and, as such, this argument of the petitioners is rejected.

Patna High Court - Orders

Asha Devi & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012

Citation: 2012(3)Crimes356, II(2013)DMC230, 2012(4)PLJR942

Print Page

When prosecution for offence U/S 498A and S 406 of IPC can be quashed against parents in law?

 We have seen the complaint very carefully. From a bare reading of the complaint it is apparent that the problem started barely after six months of the marriage. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is stated that all the accused came to complainant's parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to give the complainant more gold and other articles as dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there and Rajesh would be married second time. In paragraph 4, the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back. When we see the complaint as a whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh. All the allegations are against Rajesh. There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent. It seems from the order taking cognizance that the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version of the complainant is supported by Bhagwati and Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted to Krishan Saroop and Rajesh while clothes were entrusted to Rakhi and they refused to hand over the same. Even their statements could not be better than the vague complaint. Even about the clothes, the date on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to be the daughter of the present appellants and the other details are very significantly absent. It was also the version of the complainant that she was beaten in support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS hospital, New Delhi. However, in the complaint, it is not seen as to on which date she was beaten and by whom. It is significant to note that the matter against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already been dropped as she was in fact not even the resident of the same house.

 In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.

 The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the jewellery. This is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us that there is no mention of the date on which the said ornaments, if any, were entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they were demanded back and were refused to be given back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth the name against the present appellants. All the allegations appear to be against the Rajesh.

Supreme Court of India

Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Deepak Verma

REPORTABLE

 Citation:  2010CriLJ448, (2009)10SCC184, 

Print Page

When prosecution for offence U/S 498A and S 406 of IPC should not be quashed?

Criminal - Quashing of Proceeding - Sections 498A,384,327,406,506,120B of Indian Penal Code,1860 (I.P.C.) - Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Petitioners sought for quashing of proceeding taken against him for offences punishable under I.P.C. - Hence, this Revision Application - Held, FIR showed clearly that Petitioners together with other accused persons named in that FIR created pressure on complainant to write letter of declaration for withdrawal of case and acknowledging receipt of her stridhan articles from them - Petitioners helped Accused No. 1 to extort signatures of complainant on some blank papers under threat of death and more grievous injuries - On perusal of case diary it appeared that Investigating Officer had collected some evidence in support of FIR suggesting active role of Petitioners in matter of coercing signatures of complainant on some blank papers - Further evidence so far collected by I.O. before stay order was granted, indicated that allegation against Petitioners were supported by evidence - It was found that FIR in question disclosed commission cognizable offence broadly and prima facie wherein Petitioners were involved - Moreover at stage of investigation when broad and prima facie case was made out against Petitioners it would be improper for Court to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed proceeding - Hence prayer for quashing of proceeding against Petitioners was liable to be rejected - Revision Application dismissed.
"Court shall not allow quashing of proceeding against accused if charges is proved at prima facie stage."

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)

Rupa Agarwal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 23 March, 2011

Author: Kanchan Chakraborty

Print Page

Distinction between cruelty for offenceU/S 498A of IPC and for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act

 In order to succeed in charge under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellants had subjected deceased Lovely to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to the Section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The cruelty, as defined in the explanation to 498-A of IPC, is altogether different from the cruelty, which can be subject matter of proceedings, under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty, so as to attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498-A of IPC, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression „willful‟ in the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his relative, as the case may be. Everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman. Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behavior. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC. Of course, the expression „cruelty‟ would take in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498-A of IPC.

 If the woman has harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. The expression „harassment‟ has not been defined in Section 498-A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Delhi High Court

Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 2 March, 2010

Author: V. K. Jain

Citation; 2010 CRLJ 4664 Delhi

Print Page

Whether not treating daughter in law with respect amounts to offence punishable under S 498A of IPC?

It appears that after almost a period of three years the
first informant thought fit to lodge the FIR. Rude and
uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are
mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section
498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract
Section 498A of the IPC. Even if I accept the entire case of the
prosecution, there is nothing against the father-in-law and the
married sister-in-law. Whatever little has been alleged is
against the mother-in-law, and that too, hurling of abuses,
using of perfunctory words, etc. They may be morally guilty of
not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian
society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC.
R/CR.MA/4899/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4899 of 2015

HARESH LALSINGH GADHAVI  V STATE OF GUJARAT & 


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/11/2015

Print Page

Whether wife can be denied maintenance on ground that she has not challenged judgment of acquittal passed in favour of husband in offence U/S 498A of IPC?

Merely because the respondent / husband was acquitted from
the prosecution launched against him U/Section 498[A] of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and as no further Cri.Revision / Cri.Appeal was preferred that
by itself does not mean that Applicant No.1 was not refused and neglected
to maintain by respondent/husband. In absence of the Judgment of acquittal
on record, the Revisional Court ought not to have readily reached to the
conclusion only on that ground that, the applicant was not neglected by the
respondent husband.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Criminal Revision Application No. 316 Of 2000.

 Smt. Dwarkabai s/o Sambhaji Vetal.
V 
Sambhaji Raosaheb Vetal.

Coram : V.M. Deshpande, J.
Date : 19th June, 2014.
Citation;2015(3) crimes 521 Bom

Print Page

How to ascertain jurisdiction of court in case of offence under S 498A and 406 of IPC?

“12. The crucial question is
whether any part of the cause of
action arose within the
jurisdiction of the court
concerned. In terms of Section 177
of the Code, it is the place where
the offence was committed. In
essence it is the cause of action
for initiation of the proceedings
against the accused.”
It is true that Section 177 of the Code
refers to the local jurisdiction where
the offence is committed. Though the
expression “cause of action” is not a
stranger to criminal cases, in view of
Sections 178 and 179 of the Code and in
the light of the specific averment in
the complaint of the appellant herein,
we are of the view that the said
decision is not applicable to the case
on hand.
10. Mr. Sanyal also relied on a
decision of this Court in Bhura Ram
and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and
Another, (2008) 11 SCC 103 wherein
following the decision in Y. Abraham
Ajith and Others (supra), this Court
held that “cause of action”; having
arisen within the jurisdiction of the
court where the offence was committed,
could not be tried by the court where
no part of offence was committed. For
the same reasons, as mentioned in the
earlier paragraph, while there is no
dispute as to the proposition in view
of the fact that in the case on hand,
the offence was a continuing one and
the episode at Gaya was only a
consequence at the continuing offence
of harassment and ill-treatment meted
out to the complainant, clause (c) of
Section 178 is attracted. In view of
the above reason, both the decisions
are not applicable to the facts of
this case and we are unable to accept
the stand taken by Mr. Sanyal.
11. We have already adverted to the
details made by the appellant in the
complaint. In view of the specific
assertion by the appellant-wife about
the ill-treatment and cruelty at the
hands of the husband and his relatives
at Ranchi and of the fact that because
of their action, she was taken to her
parental home at Gaya by her husband
with a threat of dire consequences for
not fulfilling their demand of dowry,
we hold that in view of Sections 178
and 179 of the Code, the offence in
this case was a continuing one having
been committed in more local areas and
one of the local areas being Gaya, the
learned Magistrate at Gaya has
jurisdiction to proceed with the
criminal case instituted therein. In
other words, the offence was a
continuing one and the episode at Gaya
was only a consequence of continuing
offence of harassment of illtreatment
meted out to the complainant, clause
(c) of Section 178 is attracted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1581/2010
Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Order : 21st February, 2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Print Page

Whether complaint under S 498A of IPC is maintainable at the place where wife is residing at the time of filing of complaint?

 The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As a consequence thereof, the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar are quashed. The complaint be returned to the complainant and if she so wishes she may file the same in the appropriate court to be dealt with in accordance with law.1

Supreme Court of India

Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008

Bench: P.P. Naolekar, V.S. Sirpurkar

Print Page

Whether failure of husband to give funds to meet domestic expenses amounts to cruelty as per S 498A of IPC?

Mere failure of husband to give funds to meet domestic expenses is not termed as cruelty within purview of S 498A of IPC.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that apart

from independent evidence, complainant has not been able to give specific
date and time when the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made for
opening a school. That she was not harassed on that count. That the
complainant has not even mentioned the date and time of any ill-treatment.
According to learned counsel for the respondent, the quarrel between the
couple was because he could not afford domestic expenses due to non
payment of salary. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition
of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra 
V/s.
Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar 

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2523

Print Page

Whether directing wife not to chat on facebook amounts to cruelty to wife as per S 498A of IPC?

 In paragraph 14 of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 forced the complainant to apologize and make a solemn promise that the complainant shall not chat on "ORKUT", a social networking site. I do not think that even this allegation can amount to harassment within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as it has no relation to driving the complainant into such behavior as to endanger her life or cause injury to herself. This allegation also does not have any relation to coercing of the complainant into meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. On the contrary, spending long time on social networking site such as "ORKUT" or "FACEBOOK" by a person can be viewed as mental harassment by another spouse and, therefore, if the spouse is advised to spend loss time on a social networking site or desist from visiting it, the advice is capable as being seen as made with a view to keep the marriage intact and not otherwise.

Equivalent Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)2607, 2015(2)Crimes368(Bom.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 251 of 2014

Decided On: 14.01.2015

 Gopal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.

Print Page

Whether wife initiating proceeding under S498A of IPC and S 125 of CRPC amounts to cruelty?

Then comes the wife filing a petition under Section 498-A of IPC and initiating proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, mere filing of the petition, taking action for legitimate rights will not be amounting to cruelty. It is not brought on record that the allegations in the petition were of such grave nature, that they necessitated separation and perpetual severance between the parties.

Bombay High Court

Sandip vs Aruna on 5 March, 2009

Bench: K.U. Chandiwal

Citation;2009(6) MHLJ961 Bom

Print Page

When Husband's extramarital relationship will not amount to cruelty for the purpose of S 498A of IPC?

Coming to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the factum of divorce has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and the High Court. But the fact remains is that the husband and the wife had started living separately in the same house and the deceased had told her sister that there was severance of status and she would be going to her parental home after the 'Holi' festival. True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.

Supreme Court of India

Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2015

Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1188 SC

Print Page

Relatives of Husband should not be made accused in offence U/S 498A of IPC without allegation of active involvement in the matter

Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

Supreme Court of India

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 17 October, 2012

Citation: AIR2013SC181,  (2012)10SCC741,
Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010)

Print Page

When offence U/S 498A of IPC will be continuing offence?

As observed by this Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Anr. (AIR 1973 SC 908), continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all, that it is one of those offences which arises out of the failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, liability continues till compliance, that on every occasion such disobedience or non-compliance occurs or recurs, there is the offence committed.

A similar plea relating to continuance of the offence was examined by this Court in Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997 (5) SCC 30). There the allegations related to commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 498A, 506 and 323 IPC. On the factual background, it was noted that though the dowry demands were made earlier the husband of the complainant went to the place where complainant was residing and had assaulted her. This Court held in that factual background that clause (c) of Section 178 was attracted. But in the present case the factual position is different and the complainant herself left the house of the husband on 15.4.1997 on account of alleged dowry demands by the husband and his relations. There is thereafter not even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence much less at Chennai. That being so, the logic of Section 178 (c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offences cannot be applied.

Supreme Court of India

Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

Print Page

Whether seeking Divorce on ground that wife is suffering from cancer amounts to cruelty attracting S 498A of IPC?

 It has been held by this Court in C. Veerudu v. State of A.P. (1988) 2 Andh LT 171 : 1989 Cri LJ NOC 52 that even in respect of the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, the necessary mens rea is required, and it cannot be said by any stretch of imaginaiton that the ground mentioned in the Divorce petition that the wife was suffering from Cancer, if ultimately considered to be a cruelty for a moment, the necessary mens rea is lacking, which is necessary ingredient, so as to bring home the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. This approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally wrong and has been oblivious of the very provisions of Section 498-A, IPC, and the explanation appended to the said section. The word 'Cruelty' has been sought to be illustrated and thus may be extracted hereunder for brevity and better understanding of the matter and also for appreciation of the points germane for consideration :-

Section 498-A IPC

Explanation : For the purpose of this Section "Cruelty" means :-

(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

It is obvious from the perusal of the explanation given under Section 498-A, IPC that cruelty means a wilful conduct of such a nature and of such a magnitude so as to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health of the woman. Seeking divorce on the ground that she was suffering from virulent disease like Cancer, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it would lead to such a situation where P.W. 1 would prepare to commit suicide. The explanation further says that the harassment of woman shall be with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. This has to be considered with reference to the legal principles enunciated by this Court in the judgment referred to (1989 Cri LJ NOC 52) (supra) of this Court that the element of mens rea shall be there. After having considered the explanation appended to Section 498-A, IPC, it is manifest that the finding of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge that the grounds mentioned by the revision petitioner in seeking divorce which turned out to be baseless by themselves amounts to cruelty are not well founded and cannot be countenanced.


Andhra High Court

Ch. Narender Reddy vs State Of A.P. on 16 June, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 (2) ALD Cri 408,

 2000 (2) ALD Cri 821

Print Page