Section 498-A IPC: Supreme Court Clarifies What Counts as ‘Cruelty'

The bench observed that the requirement for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

Court also pointed out that the latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives.

The bench explained this legal provision while quashing criminal proceedings against appellants Sanjay S Jain and others. The proceedings arose out of an FIR lodged in 2022 and the subsequent final report under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

Court found no prima facie case against the appellants, stating that the statements of the complainant were of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars.

The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, had approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench dismissed their application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The complainant married Piyush on July 14, 2021, and filed the FIR on February 14, 2022, alleging he and his family used to make dowry demands. She also alleged that her husband insisted that she engages in unnatural sex, which resulted in causing her mental torture.

In their plea before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the high court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings qua them. Their counsel submitted that the allegations made were entirely vague in nature and in the absence of any details whatsoever it could not be said that even a prima facie case had been made out for proceeding with the trial.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Digambar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (2024), they submitted that even if statements made in the FIR were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused had been made out.

Opposing the plea, the state counsel argued that the complainant had clearly stated there was a consistent demand by the appellants for gifts and other items towards dowry from the complainant and her family. The items demanded had been mentioned in the complaint, and other better particulars could be brought on record as evidence. He submitted that the high court was justified in refusing to quash the proceedings and it would be open for the appellants to defend the proceedings during the trial and seek acquittal therein.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the FIR as well as the final report, the bench said, ''We are of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants pursuant to the registration of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code deserve to be quashed".

Referring to the quashing parameters, the bench noted that if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, did not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. The court emphasised, "Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case".

The bench pointed out that a perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicated that statements of a general nature had been made therein as against the present appellants. Court noted the complainant stated that on August 07, 2021, when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother-in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on August 30, 2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members.

The bench stated, "Except this, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever".

With regard to the offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, court said the allegations had been made only against the complainant’s husband and not against the present appellants.

The bench added, "The entire tenor of the complaint in that regard seeks to implicate the complainant’s husband, and all incidents stated therein relate to him. There is no allegation whatsoever in that context against the appellants that would require them to face trial on that count".

Court held that the proceedings in respect of the appellants deserved to be quashed in their entirety. The bench said, "In our view, the High Court failed to notice this aspect of the matter while declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants".

Referring to State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1990), the court said a case had been made out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against them under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

The bench concluded, "Continuation of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, hence, the appellants are entitled to relief." Court, however, clarified that the proceedings against the husband would be adjudicated on their own merits.

Case Title: Sanjay D Jain & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Judgment Date: September 26, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar