Bombay HC: Whether the court should believe prosecution case if it fails to bring on record articles which were obtained by accused by torturing the wife?

 The first information report (Exh. 27) discloses that the marriage of the first informant was performed with the applicant on 9.3.1993 and the couple is having one daughter by name Sonu, who at the relevant time was aged 2 1/2 years. The first information report further proceeds that she was given nice treatment by all the accused for 5-6 months. Thereafter, the applicant started demanding Rs. 10,000/-, to be brought from her father, for obtaining R.M.P. (Registered Medical Practitioner) degree. She disclosed the said fact to her father, and her father gave Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant and thereafter he obtained the degree of R.M.P. from Chandrapur. It is further alleged that thereafter her father established one dispensary at village Maltekadi. {Para 6}

The first information report further states that greed of the applicant was not satisfied and he started demanding Rs. 25,000/- from the first informant for establishing a big dispensary, which was refused by her father. Therefore, she was subjected to all sorts of atrocities at his hand, resulting into holding a meeting by her father. In the said meeting various independent respectable persons from the society participated and they tried to prevail upon the mind of the applicant that he should not continue his acts of ill treatment upon the first informant, however, the applicant did not budge and he was insisting that the first informant should give signature on blank stamp paper.

If the prosecution case is to be believed, the demand started after 5-6 months of the marriage and demand was for specific reason namely for obtaining a degree of R.M.P. According to the prosecution, the said demand was fulfilled by the father Yadav (P.W. 3). Therefore, the prosecution was under obligation to bring said R.M.P. degree on record because it is the specific case of the prosecution that in pursuance to the fulfillment of the demand the applicant obtained the degree from Chandrapur and then he started his medical practice. From the record, it shows that no attempts were made to procure the said degree.

Further the house of the applicant was also visited at the time of drawing the spot panchanama (Exh. 39). The spot panchanama does not reveal any reference of the degree being found in the said house. Thus, the very foundation of the prosecution case that in pursuance to the fulfillment of the demand by the parents of the first informant the applicant obtained degree and started practice, appears to be doubtful. It is the further case of the prosecution that after obtaining degree, the father established dispensary for the applicant at village Maltekadi, however, there is nothing on record to substantiate the said claim.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2003

Decided On: 18.02.2015

Shivanand Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL M R (Cri) 2181,MANU/MH/1245/2015.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Evidence of witnesses about what deceased had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible U/S 32(1) of the Evidence Act

The moot question is: whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence for entering upon a finding that the accused subjected Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A, IPC. In our considered view, the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose. Except Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other provision under which the statement of a dead person can be looked into in evidence. The statement of a dead person is admissible in law if the statement is as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstance of the transactions which resulted in her death, in a case in which the cause of death comes into question. What has been deposed by PW-4 and PW-5 has no connection with any circumstance of transaction which resulted in her death. The death of Smt. Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was neither homicidal nor suicidal; it was accidental. Since for an offence under Section 498A simpliciter, the question of death is not and cannot be an issue for consideration, we are afraid the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 is hardly an evidence in law to establish such offence. In that situation Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act does not get attracted.

{Para 11}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2009 

Decided On: 29.05.2009

Bhairon Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Devinder Kumar Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author:R.M. Lodha, J.

Citations: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2603, 2009 (13) SCC 80, MANU/SC/0908/2009

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can cast burden U/S 106 of Evidence Act on accused if prosecution has failed to prove his presence on the spot of offence at the time of offence?

The evidence of the eye-witnesses when considered in conjunction with the testimony of the doctor does not link the Appellant directly or indirectly with the actual act leading to the unnatural death of the deceased. In absence of any persuasive evidence to hold that at the relevant time the Appellant was present in the house, it would also be impermissible to cast any burden on him as contemplated Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. {Para 49}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2013 

Decided On: 03.10.2016

Jose Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Citation: 2016:INSC:941 : (2016) 10 SCC 519,MANU/GJ/2494/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should convict husband for murder of his wife if he is acquitted by the court for offence U/S 498A of IPC in the same crime?

On an overall consideration of the evidence available on record, it would be, in our view, wholly unsafe to hold the Appellant guilty of the charge of murder of his wife by strangulating her with the nylon rope as seized and then hanging her from the roof with the saree to complete the act. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution in our assessment falls short of the requirement in law to return a finding of guilt against the Appellant without any element of doubt whatsoever. The fact that both the accused persons had been exonerated of the charge of cruelty Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and that the co-accused, who allegedly had assisted the Appellant in the perpetration of the crime had been fully acquitted by the courts below of all the charges also takes away the wind from the sails of the prosecution. {Para 52}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2013 

Decided On: 03.10.2016

Jose Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ.

Citation: 2016:INSC:941 : (2016) 10 SCC 519,MANU/GJ/2494/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Material omissions amounting to contradiction and material improvement in the evidence of prosecution witness, the court should disbelieve prosecution evidence

14. Material Contradictions:

While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan and Anr.   MANU/SC/8113/2008 : AIR 2009 SC 152).

15. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh   MANU/SC/0446/1998 : (2009) 11 SCC 106).

16. The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide: Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh   MANU/SC/0279/2009 : (2009) 11 SCC 334).

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2004

Decided On: 11.11.2010

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2011 All M R (Cri.) 288 (SC),2010 INSC 770, MANU/SC/0947/2010.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in case of abetment of suicide of wife if evidence shows that everything was going on smoothly in her matrimonial home?

The evidence of complainant (PW 2) and other witnesses show that Mangalabai died within one and half months of the marriage. Out of this period, she lived in the house of her parents for more than 20 days. The evidence of complainant shows that even during the Mango season, she stayed with her parents for 10-15 days continuously. She was sent back to parents house as per custom on every occasion and the accused persons never prevented her from going to the house of her parents. All the customary rites and functions were arranged by the accused and also by the family of the complainant. The husband never avoided to visit the house of his in-laws. The message about the incident was given by the family of the accused to complainant immediately. They also approached police after the incident. It appears that in the early hours of 24.6.1992, they noticed that Mangalabai was dead. She had probably consumed poison on the night between 23rd and 24th. No neighbour of the accused is examined and all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. These circumstances need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence given by the complainant and his relatives. {Para 9}

10. The defence has not disputed that Mangalabai died due to consumption of insecticide. There is evidence of doctor and there is C.A. report to show that death took place due to insecticide. The evidence on record shows that accused persons do not own agricultural land and they are working as barber, having their hair cutting shop in the village. The evidence of complainant during cross examination and also the mention in the complaint show that accused No. 4 was living in Sillod due to his service. Thus, on the day of incident accused No. 4 was not there, but he was also involved in the case. No investigation was made by police to find out as to how and from where the deceased procured the insecticide, when accused are not agriculturists. These circumstances also need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence of witnesses. Suggestions are given by the defence to prosecution witnesses that Mangalabai had no intention to cohabit with the accused for some reason and due to that she committed suicide. Though these suggestions are denied, the fact remains that for most of the period after the marriage Mangalabai was staying with her parents.

11. It was arranged marriage. The evidence of complainant and other witnesses show that the accused had seen the deceased atleast twice and the husband had approved her for marriage. It is not the case of complainant that at the time of settlement of marriage, something was demanded by giving excuse that Mangalabai was black in complexion or her tooth were not properly arranged and she was looking ugly. As it was arranged marriage and Mangalabai was approved by Ganesh, it does not look probable that immediately after the marriage, accused Ganesh started saying that she was not liking Mangalabai. On the contrary, Ganesh took her to religious places after the marriage and all the ceremonies were performed and attended by Ganesh. It is not version of complainant that Ganesh had directly expressed to him that he was not liking Mangalabai. 

12. In any case, the story given by the interested witnesses do not appear to be probable in nature. Accused No. 3 was already having a colour T.V. set in his house. As it was settled marriage and accused No. 3 had approved the deceased for marriage, it does not look probable that such demand was made subsequent to marriage. If the complainant and his family had really promised to meet the demand at Diwali festival, there was no reason for the accused to give ill-treatment to the deceased. In any case, the stay of the deceased in the house of the accused was so short that there was no possibility of giving ill-treatment to the deceased as defined under section 498-A of I.P.C. It is already discussed that investigation was not made to find out as to how the deceased procured the bottle of insecticide. The evidence of Police Officer shows that after registration of A.D., some statements were recorded. Those statements were not brought before the Court. The neighbours of the accused are not examined. It appears that the trial Court had given much emphasis on so called conduct. The death took place in the night time and probably insecticide was consumed in the night time by deceased. Thus, there was no opportunity for the accused to know about the consumption of the insecticide. In view of all the circumstances, the appellate Court has acquitted the respondents. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the decision given by the first appellate Court. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 2000

Decided On: 28.01.2013

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramrao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2013 ALL M R (Cri) 3454,MANU/MH/1858/2013.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the court can draw presumption U/S 113A of evidence Act, if there is no complaint of ill-treatment after resumption of co-habitation?

 It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that after resumption of co-habitation till unfortunate incident of drowning, there is no evidence to show that during this period of 3 months the deceased was subjected to cruelty except a bald statement of PW1 Ramchandra Bawane.

19. Though Exhibit 41 dated 10.5.1995 is available on record, which shows that on 10.3.1993 appellant Anandrao poured kerosene on deceased Sangeeta. According to the prosecution, it is under the signature of deceased Sangeeta. The said report was addressed to the Kothari Police Station. However, record shows that actually the report was not lodged with the Kothari Police Station. Said report Exhibit 41 is coming on record during the course of investigation by PW7 Subhash Shinde. His evidence shows that during inquiry, PW1 first informant Ramchandra handed over copy of Exhibit 41 to him. Learned Judge of the Court below, in my view, has rightly discarded the said document since PW1 first informant Ramchandra is totally silent about said report in his FIR lodged against the appellant. and also evidence of PW1 Ramchandra does not have any reference about same.

20. PW1 first informant Ramchandra has admitted that no report was lodged with the police after resumption of co-habitation. Non-filing of report after resumption of cohabitation has its own importance. Exhibit 35 is not only signed by appellant Anandrao, deceased Sangeeta, and pancha witnesses but signed by PW1 first informant Ramchandra also. Exhibit 35 was required to be executed because according to the prosecution, deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty and only on execution of Exhibit 35 deceased was allowed to have co-habitation with appellant Anandrao.

Had there was any ill-treatment after execution of Exhibit 35 and prior to incident of drowning, it would have been a natural reaction on the part of PW1 Ramchandra to report the matter to the police or at least to Panchayat before whom Exhibit 35 was executed to point out them that in spite of execution of Exhibit 35, still appellant Anandrao is persistent in committing ill-treatment to deceased Sangeeta. Nothing such has happened. In my view, therefore, importance cannot be attached to bald statement made during the course of recording of evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that after execution of Exhibit 35 ill-treatment continued. Therefore, I reject the evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that there used to be ill-treatment even after execution of document Exhibit 35.

21. It is the obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On such proof only, the prosecution can press into service statutory presumption as available to it under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In absence of proof of cruelty, merely because deceased Sangeeta met with an unnatural death within a span of 2 years of her marriage, ipso facto the prosecution cannot take recourse to Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Re-appreciation of the prosecution evidences shows that there was no ill-treatment after resumption of co-habitation after execution of document Exhibit 35 till the date of unfortunate incident on 20.5.1995. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2001

Decided On: 11.07.2017

Anandrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Deshpande, J.

Citation: 2017 ALL M R (Cri) 3436,MANU/MH/1454/2017.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Non disclosure of ill treatment to wife by her family members to independent witness prior to her death whether fatal U/S 306 of IPC?

It may be seen that there is no independent witness, to whom any of the family members of the victim had ever reported before her death that, the victim was subjected to ill-treatment. All the allegations about ill-treatment came after the unfortunate incident. Though the witnesses are parents and siblings of the victim, they speak in different voices. There is no unanimity amongst them as to what was the cause of the victim's ill-treatment and how it was meted out. It, therefore, seems that the entire story about ill-treatment is afterthought. The victim did not have any issue. {Para 13}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1996

Decided On: 13.01.2006

Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Chavan, J.

Citation: 2006 ALL M R (Cri) 975, MANU/MH/0859/2006.

Print Page

No Inflexible Rule That Alibi Can Be Proved Only In Trial : Supreme Court Quashes S. 498A IPC Case Against BSF Personnel

 In these circumstances, continuing a full

sessions trial against the appellant alone,

while his co-accused stand acquitted on the

self-same evidence, would not further the

cause of justice but would subject the

appellant to the ordeal and stigma of a criminal

trial whose substratum has already collapsed.

The High Court, in the impugned judgment,

proceeded on the premise that the appellant's

reliance on the service certificate was a bare

plea of alibi of the kind considered in Rajendra

Singh (supra), and declined to examine

corroborating circumstances. This, in the

considered view of this Court, constituted a

failure to appreciate unimpeachable material

bearing directly on the question of abuse of

process, and calls for interference. {Para 34}

35. In light of the foregoing facts and

circumstances, and the analysis of the legal

precedents referred to above, this Court is of

the view that the four-steps as laid down in the

case of Rajiv Thapar (supra) are satisfied in

the present case. The service certificate is not

disputed as a document, its issuing authority

is not questioned, nor are its contents

disputed. Where the unimpeached

documentary record and the result of a

connected trial on identical evidence, taken

together, demonstrate that the continuation of

the prosecution against the appellant would be

a legal exercise in futility, the High Court, and

now this Court, would be failing in their duty

if they permitted the criminal process to

continue merely because a technical prima

facie case can be spelt out from the bare

averments of the F.I.R. The categories

identified in Bhajan Lal (supra) are

illustrative and not exhaustive, and the

present case falls squarely within the rationale

of categories 1, 3 and 6 concerning inherent

improbability of the allegations and abuse of

the process of the court.

36. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is

satisfied that the continuation of criminal

proceedings against the appellant amounts to

an abuse of the process of the court and

requires to be quashed qua the appellant

alone.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2939 OF 2026)

RAHUL  Vs  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 825

Print Page

Supreme Court Extends S.498A IPC To Live-In Relationships Which Are 'Relationships In The Nature Of Marriage'

CONCLUSION

23. (i) Section 498A is held to be applicable to “live-in

relationships” that qualify as “relationships in the nature of

marriage” with the intent to marry being established as an

intrinsic part thereof;

(ii) The “live-in relationships” protected by Section 498A, it

is stated for ample clarity, are those that are between two

consenting adult individuals;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No (s). OF 2026

DR. LOKESH B.H. & ORS. Vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 784

Print Page

Supreme Court: Precaution to be taken by the court while passing order of issue process against in- laws of wife for prosecution U/S 498A of IPC

Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana   MANU/SC/0880/2018 : (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:

6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. {Para 17}

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the Accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all Accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each Accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022

Decided On: 08.02.2022

Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: Krishna Murari, J.

Citation: 2022 INSC 163, MANU/SC/0163/2022,(2022) 6 SCC 599

Print Page

Supreme Court: No FIR U/S 498A of IPC is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.

Ratio: If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 

Decided On: 03.05.2024

Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Author: Citation: 2024 INSC 369, MANU/SC/0377/2024

Print Page

Supreme Court Highlights Growing Trend Of Dowry Victims Arraigning Relatives Of Husband residing at distant place away from victim

 Insofar as Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant No. 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 and their children. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. {Para 24}

25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, Appellant Nos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant No. 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2137 of 2025 

Decided On: 23.04.2025

Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 562: MANU/SC/0546/2025

Print Page

Bombay HC guidelines for investigation and appreciation of evidence for the offence under S 498A of IPC

 The informant is contending that after three months of marriage all the accused persons started taunting her on the ground that she is from village and is unable to cook food. She has specifically stated that on the trifle domestic grounds she was mentally and physically harassed, however, she has not given the details except the said taunting. All the seven persons could not have given taunts at one and the same time. Further, in the entire FIR she has not stated as to why the married sister-in-law and her husband were residing in house of her husband i.e. applicant No.1. In the normal course, the married sister-in-law and her husband would reside at the place where the husband of the sister-in-law is residing. If we consider the address given by the applicants, then of course applicant Nos.5 and 6 are also residing at Aurangabad, but their house is different and in a different locality than the house of applicant Nos.1 to 4. Same is as regards applicant No.7, who is the cousin brother of applicant No.1. Informant has thereafter stated that her husband and parents-in-law were asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for getting permanency in employment of husband with Nagar Parishad. She told them that her parents are poor and unable to give the amount. Then applicant Nos.1 to 3 responded that if she is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to "physical and mental cruelty" are not given. Statement that unless she brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment. When the alleged demand is made has also not approximately stated and for how much period the said demand persisted has not been stated. She then states that she gave information about the treatment given to her and her father who had in turn given that information to their relative. All of them had come and tried to persuade accused persons, but there was no settlement. According to the informant since that date the accused persons intensified harassment. Again the details are lacking. Then she directly states that when she was in her parental house, applicant No.1 went there and abused her. Thereafter, the other accused persons i.e. applicant Nos.4 to 7 instigated applicant Nos.1 to 3 for not to allow cohabitation of the informant with applicant No.1. Threat was given that if she is unable to bring the money then she will not be allowed to stay with them and she would be killed. All these allegations are vague. When that statement was made has also not been stated. As earlier stated it is to be noted that she got married on 24.06.2022 and FIR has been lodged on 24.07.2023. That means the married life of which narration has been given is of just more than one year. Out of that three months she was treated properly and when she returned to the parental home has not been stated. Statements of the witnesses are on the same line. All the witnesses have also kept those facts vague as they are. Neither the details about the alleged cruelty have been given, nor the date on which there was a meeting and when the informant came to the parental home has been stated. The statements of the witnesses are copy paste and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons. There cannot be statement in the form of copy paste paragraph to paragraph without difference in punctuations and fonts also. Unnecessarily energy has been wasted in drawing panchanama of the house of applicant No.1 and even photographs have been taken on the mobile and then certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has been given. {Para 4}

5. We are constrained to observe that police officials are not investigating such cases in the manner they are required to. There is no sensitivity that is shown, nor proper procedure is adopted. Statements in the nature of copy paste is the example of non application of mind by the investigating officer (as he is supposed to apply his mind even while taking statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and insensitivity. They do not make inquiry to the neighbours of the matrimonial home. Statements are always recorded of the witnesses who are either relatives of the wife or neighbours where her parents are residing. Of course the lady would disclose the treatment that is given to her parents and the relatives at the first place and their statements would then be important, however, the other possibilities involved and any other piece of evidence if available is not at all considered by the investigating officers. It is not even necessary that the charge-sheet should be filed against all those persons who are named in the FIR as well as statements of witnesses. If those accused are residing at far away place, then how that accused would have been involved in the commission of the offence should be considered by the investigating officer. It is in the wisdom of the investing officer to file charge-sheet against those accused only against whom there is strong evidence. Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided.

6. In the present case, the FIR is as vague as possible and it is not disclosing the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, this is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid the unjust trial against the applicants.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 3263 of 2023

Decided On: 10.01.2025

Mohd  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi and R.W. Joshi, JJ.

Author: Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:594-DB, MANU/MH/3509/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused involved in matrimonial offence can be permitted to accept Job Abroad?

 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the permission sought by the appellant to travel abroad to join as Cyber Security Architect with a company in Belgium should not be denied, merely on account of pendency of the aforesaid case against him. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in India for the last more than one year, still the investigation has not been completed. In case the appellant is not allowed to go abroad to join the service, as has been offered to him, his career prospects may be affected. However, we grant permission to the appellant subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant will deposit a sum of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with the Trial Court within two weeks which shall be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank initially for a period of one year and shall be renewed automatically thereafter, till either the appellant comes back or the trial is over. Specific order of the Trial Court shall be required to release that FDR;

(ii) The appellant shall furnish an undertaking before the Trial Court within two weeks that he will attend each and every hearing of the case, as and when chargesheet, if any, is filed and also attend the hearing personally in case the Court so requires; and

(iii) In case of his failure to comply with the undertaking given by him, the amount of ` 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) shall stand forfeited to the State, on passing of order by the Trial Court. {Para 5}

6. The order dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the High Court stands modified to the extent mentioned above.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2025

Date of Order: 09.12.2025

A.Mohammed Zaheer Vs. The State Rep . By The Inspector Of Police and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/94504/2025

Print Page

Forensic Delay and the Duty of the Sessions Court: Judicial Control Over Missing Scientific Reports in Sessions Trials

Delay in receipt of a material scientific report can paralyse a sessions trial, weaken the truth-finding process, and undermine the constitutional expectation of speedy justice. Indian criminal procedure does not contemplate that the court should remain a silent spectator when a forensic report, especially one central to the prosecution case, is withheld or indefinitely delayed. The governing judicial approach is one of active case management: the court must insist on accountability, preserve trial momentum, and ensure that essential scientific evidence is brought on record within a reasonable time.

The doctrinal foundation

Print Page

A Shield or a Weapon? 5 Surprising Takeaways from the Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling Shivangi Bansal vs. Sahib Bansal case on s 498A of IPC

 

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Justice

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was forged with a clear and vital purpose: to serve as a legal shield for women facing cruelty in their matrimonial homes. It is a potent law, making such abuse a cognizable, non-bailable offense to ensure swift, decisive action for victims in genuine peril. Police can arrest without a warrant, and bail is difficult to secure—features designed for immediate protection.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Vague and omnibus allegations in a Section 498A FIR fail to constitute cruelty without specific instances or evidence

Merely stating that the Accused-Appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-Respondent No. 2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. {Para 24}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.... of 2025 (Arising Out of Diary No. 47072 of 2023))

Decided On: 19.12.2025

Belide Swagath Kumar Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1722/2025,2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC.

A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant-respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that the husband and his family along with the accused-appellant herein mentally harassed her with a demand of dowry, the complainant-respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment.

Although she has alleged that an amount totalling to Rupees One Crore was demanded by the accused-appellant and his family members, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to put forth any evidence or material on record to elaborate or substantiate the same. Furthermore, the complainant-respondent No.2 has failed to impress the court as to how the said alleged harassment has caused her any injury, mental or physical. There has been no remote or proximate act or omission attributed to the accused-appellant that implicates him or assigns him any specific role in the said FIR for the offence of 498A of the IPC. Merely stating that the accused-appellant has mentally harassed the complainant-respondent No.2 with respect to a demand of dowry does not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC especially in the face of absence of any cogent material or evidence on record to substantiate the said allegations. The term “cruelty” cannot be established without specific instances. The tendency of invoking these sections, without mentioning any specific details, weakens the case of prosecution and casts serious aspersions on the viability of the version of the complainant. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the missing specifics in an FIR which is the premise of invoking criminal machinery of the State. In such cases involving allegations of cruelty and harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against perpetrators in specific terms to involve such perpetrators into the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them and therefore mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such persons would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings. {Para 24}

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. of 2025

arising out of Diary No.47072 of 2023)

BELIDE SWAGATH KUMAR Vs  STATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER 

Author: NAGARATHNA, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1471.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence U/S 498A IPC

Furthermore, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1308/2024 : (2025) 2 SCC 116 the Supreme Court while considering the guilt of the husband under Section 498A IPC observed that cruelty simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC; rather it must be done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet unlawful demands. Mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence. {Para 32}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CRL.M.C. 4785/2017

Decided On: 13.08.2025

Gainda Lal Vs. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

Citation: 2025 DHC 6826, MANU/DE/6021/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page