Independent Actions And Not Instigation Or Common Intention To Be Proved For Offence U/s. 498-A IPC: Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court held, "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 offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be proved."
The Bombay High Court has ruled that instigation or common intention alone is insufficient to invoke Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that an individual's independent actions must amount to cruelty for the offense to be established.
The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a woman’s brothers-in-law, her husband’s uncles, and his aunt in a dowry harassment case.
"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 offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be proved," the Court held.
Advocate Ashwini A. Lomte appeared for the Applicant and APP R.P. Gour appeared for the Respondent.
Background
The complainant, who married her husband alleged that after moving to Pune, she discovered he was unemployed and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, including unnatural sexual acts under Section 377 IPC. She claimed that her in-laws dismissed her complaints and pressured her to comply with her husband’s demands or seek a divorce.
She further alleged that when she returned to her matrimonial home, she was verbally and physically abused, and her husband defamed her by calling her a "person of the third gender." She also accused her in-laws of conspiring to portray her as mentally unstable by misleading doctors into fabricating medical records.
Court's Observations
The Court questioned the eight-month delay in filing the FIR and noted that there was no mention of whether she had informed her parents at the time.
Upon reviewing medical records, the Court found no evidence to support claims of coercion or fabrication by the in-laws. The doctors' reports reflected that the couple faced marital discord and financial struggles but did not declare the complainant mentally unstable.
The accused sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that they lived separately from the complainant and her husband and had no involvement in the alleged offenses. The prosecution, however, argued that the complainant suffered abuse at the hands of her in-laws.
The Court ultimately ruled that, aside from the husband and his parents, the allegations did not meet the legal standard for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It further observed that the complainant appeared to be acting with a "vindictive attitude," falsely implicating distant relatives.
"It appears that with some ulterior motive, the informant is leveling allegations against the husbands of married sisters-in-law, uncles, and aunt of the husband. It would be unjust to ask the applicants to face trial," the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against the complainant’s brothers-in-law, her husband's uncles, and his aunt.
Cause Title: ABC and Ors v. State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation No. 2025:BHC-AUG:5329-DB]
Appearance:-
Applicant: Advocate Ashwini A. Lomte
Respondent: APP R.P. Gour, Advocate V.A. Sayyed
Click here to read/download the Order
