The Bombay High Court recently ruled that to prove an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, a woman must be subjected to continuous cruelty close to the time of lodging the complaint. This decision came as the court quashed an FIR against an elderly couple, highlighting the need for substantial evidence.
The division bench, comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar, heard a petition from an 80-year-old and a 75-year-old, who were booked under Section 498A following a complaint from their daughter-in-law. The complainant, married to the adopted son of the petitioners since 2018, lived with her husband in Dubai but stayed with her in-laws upon returning to India.
The woman alleged that her mother-in-law instigated fights over trivial issues and that her father-in-law taunted her. She also claimed her husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. Despite these accusations, the court found no substantial evidence against the in-laws.
The bench criticized the investigation, noting that the investigating officer filed a chargesheet despite an interim order from the high court. The court stated, “The arbitrary manner in which the investigating agency has investigated this case indicates that the action of the Investigating Officer was to overreach the order of the Court, which cannot be countenanced and needs to be deprecated.”
Additionally, the court noted the freezing of the petitioners’ bank accounts, forcing them to borrow money from relatives. “Freezing of the bank accounts was manifestly arbitrary and against the mandate of law,” the court observed, emphasizing that this action violated the petitioners’ right to live with dignity.
The court further highlighted the lack of prima facie material to show the petitioners’ involvement in any cognizable offense. The bench stated, “Compelling an innocent person to approach the Court for discharge, quashing, or to go through a trial, thereby subjecting them to mental trauma, humiliation, stigmatization, and loss of reputation, would imperil their personal liberty, which is sacred and sacrosanct.”
This ruling underscores the importance of thorough and fair investigations, especially in sensitive matrimonial disputes. The court’s decision to quash the FIR serves as a reminder that accusations must be backed by continuous and substantial evidence to uphold the principles of justice.
