Mere Allegations Of Harassment Or Demands Cannot Amount To Cruelty: Bombay HC

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently observed that mere allegations of harassment or demands cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The HC made the observation while upholding acquittal of a man and his family by the trial court from charges of cruelty and dismissing the appeal filed by the State government.

An FIR was filed by a woman against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and the brother-in-law’s wife. She alleged that her husband’s family demanded Rs 80,000 to cover wedding expenses and assaulted her, including with kick blows. However, the trial court had acquitted the accused, and the State challenged this decision. Pending hearing on appeal, the man’s father passed away.

The High Court highlighted that the complainant’s allegations lacked specific details. “No specific details as to the acts of cruelty alleged by her in July and September have been stated in her recorded statement save and except what is stated hereinabove,” Justice Milind Jadhav said on December 6.

Furthermore, the woman admitted during cross-examination that neither she nor her family had raised complaints about these incidents earlier.

The judgment also pointed out that the brother-in-law and his wife lived separately and were uninvolved in the alleged harassment. The woman admitted that these individuals never quarreled with her. Referring to the allegations, the court stated, “What is significant to note in her cross-examination is the fact that she has admitted that the incidents which occurred and were narrated by her in her complaint were not complained by her or even by her parents.”

Emphasizing that mere allegations or demands do not constitute cruelty under Section 498A, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment noted, “Hence, whether mere allegation of the demand or harassment can be considered by the Court for indicting and convicting the Respondents was the question answered by the Trial Court against the Applicant.”

The HC upheld the trial court’s verdict of 2003 acquitting the man and his family.