Even separately living relatives can cause mental cruelty: Bombay HC refuses to Quash FIR Filed Under Section 498A IPC

A division bench comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice CW Chandhwani of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur recently refused to quash the FIR registered under Section 498A after observing that mental cruelty can be committed by relatives even if they are residing separately.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by relatives who were booked under Sections 498-A, 323, and 524 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Advocate D.V Mahajan for the applicants argued that neither specific allegations were made against any of these applicants nor was there any material showing that any of these applicants had resided together with the husband and the wife. Further, none of the applicants fell within the definition of the relatives, to attribute to them any such cruelty as is complemented under Section 498-A of the IPC, he contended.

Advocate S.M Godeshwar for the State argued that there was sufficient material, which would necessitate framing of the charge against the applicants and that they should be put on trial as there are specific allegations made against each of the applicants, which prima facie amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC.

The court observed that:

"No doubt, the applicants appear to be residing at some different places than the marital residence of non-applicant no. 2 but, the allegations contained in the FIR and also statements of witnesses do indicate that there used to be several occasions when all these applicants or some of them had on one or the other occasion gathered together in the house, where non-applicant no. 2 had resided and these applicants, on different occasions, also had opportunities to talk personally or on telephone with non-applicant no. 2 and during their such encounters with non-applicant no. 2, at the house where non applicant no. 2 resided or on telephone, they subjected non-applicant no. 2 to humiliation, harassment and cruelty."

The Court while rejecting the argument that relatives were not residing together observed that, "such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place. Here, in this case, for meting out mental cruelty to non-applicant no. 2, of course, in prima facie way, these applicants seems to have employed modern means of communication i.e. telephone etc. and on many occasions, they have also remained present in the company of non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed to not have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner."

The court held that the application filed was an abuse of the process of law and imposed a cost of Rs. 10000 on the applicant while dismissing it.