Instigation or common intention alone can't establish cruelty under Section 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently held that a person’s independent actions must constitute cruelty to invoke the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that instigation or common intention alone cannot be the basis for proving the offence [Manisha Pradip Waghmare and Ors v State of Maharashtra]..A 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 Section 498A 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 offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be proved.” The complainant’s sisters-in-law had also been named as accused, but their applications challenging the case were withdrawn..According to the complainant, she married her husband on June 1, 2022. After her wedding, she moved in with her husband at Pune on July 5, 2022, and soon discovered that he was unemployed. She accused him of subjecting 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 these alleged acts, they did not support her. Instead, she alleged that they threatened her, telling her to either comply with her husband’s demands or seek a divorce..She further alleged that when she returned to her matrimonial home on February 20, 2023, she informed her in-laws again about the unnatural acts committed by her husband.However, she claimed that she was verbally abused and physically assaulted by her husband, who also defamed her by calling her a person of the third gender. She then lodged a case against all the accused persons alleging that they conspired to portray her as mentally unstable and even forcibly took her to a doctor.The Court, however, questioned why she did not immediately approach the police and noted that she lodged the FIR only on October 20, 2023—nearly eight months later—without mentioning 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 alleged that even a psychiatrist was misled by her in-laws into prescribing medication to falsely establish that she was mentally unwell.However, the Court examined the doctor's records, which reflected only the presence of her husband during the visit. The doctor noted that the couple was facing marital discord, including financial struggles, which led to stress and misunderstandings about physical relations. Similarly, the gynecologist had merely provided counseling and had not declared the complainant mentally unstable..The accused sought 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 cast doubt on its veracity. The prosecution maintained that the complainant had suffered both mental and physical abuse at the hands of her in-laws, justifying the charges.The Court found that apart from the husband and his parents, the allegations against the other accused did not meet the legal standard for cruelty under Section 498A IPC. .It observed that while the complainant accused them of pressuring her to stay silent and accept her husband’s behavior, such conduct did not amount to 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, it 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..[Read Order]