The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently ruled that to establish an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a person’s individual actions must amount to cruelty. Mere instigation or shared intent is insufficient to prove the offense.

A bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh made this observation while quashing criminal proceedings against the woman's brothers-in-law, her husband's uncles, and his aunt in a case under Section 498A of the IPC.

“Each person should act in his own way and the said act independently should amount to cruelty. Instigation or common intention cannot be the basis on which the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be proved.”

The complainant had also named her sisters-in-law as accused, but their petitions challenging the case were later withdrawn.

According to the complainant, she married her husband on June 1, 2022, and moved in with him in Pune on July 5, 2022. She soon discovered that he was unemployed and alleged that he subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, including unnatural sexual acts under Section 377 of the IPC.

She claimed that when she confided in her in-laws about her husband's alleged conduct, they did not support her. Instead, she alleged that they threatened her, insisting she either comply with her husband's demands or seek a divorce.

She further alleged that upon returning to her matrimonial home on February 20, 2023, she once again informed her in-laws about the unnatural acts committed by her husband. However, she claimed that instead of helping her, she was verbally abused and physically assaulted by her husband, who also defamed her by calling her a person of the third gender.

She subsequently lodged a case against all the accused, alleging that they conspired to portray her as mentally unstable and even forcibly took her to a doctor.

The Court questioned why she did not immediately approach the police and noted that the FIR was filed only on October 20, 2023—nearly eight months later—without any mention of whether she had informed her parents at the time.

The complainant also claimed that on March 14, 2023, her in-laws intentionally took her to a gynecologist in Ambajogai, Maharashtra, to fabricate false medical records. She further alleged that a psychiatrist was misled by her in-laws into prescribing medication to falsely establish that she was mentally unwell.

However, the Court examined the medical records, which showed that only her husband was present during the visit. The doctor noted that the couple was facing marital discord, including financial struggles, leading to stress and misunderstandings regarding physical relations. Similarly, the gynecologist had only provided counseling and had not declared the complainant mentally unstable.

The accused moved to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings, arguing that they lived separately from the complainant and her husband and had no involvement in the alleged acts. They also contended that the eight-month delay in filing the complaint raised doubts about its credibility.

The prosecution, however, maintained that the complainant had suffered both mental and physical abuse at the hands of her in-laws, justifying the charges.

The Court ultimately found that apart from the husband and his parents, the allegations against the other accused did not meet the legal threshold for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It noted that while the complainant accused them of pressuring her to stay silent and accept her husband's behavior, such conduct did not constitute cruelty under the law.

“It appears that with some ulterior motive now the informant is levelling allegations against the husbands of married sisters-in-law, uncles and aunt of husband, thereby taking vindictive attitude and, therefore, it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the proceedings against the complainant’s brothers-in-law, her husband's uncles, and his aunt.

Advocate Ashwini A Lomte appeared for the in laws.

Additional Public Prosecutor R P Gour appeared for the State.

Advocate VA Sayyed appeared for the complainant-woman.