Cruelty under Section 498A IPC is defined independently of any dowry demand; physical and mental abuse constitute sufficient grounds for charges under this section.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal before us arises out of order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati whereby the High Court has quashed Criminal Case no.428 of 2018 under Section 482 CrPC pending against Accused No.1 - Respondent No.1 and Accused No.2- Respondent No.2. Aggrieved, the Appellant being the de facto Complainant is before us.

3. The factual background of the present case is such that the Appellant is the wife and Accused No.1 is her husband and Accused No.2 is her mother-in-law. The marriage of the Appellant was solemnized with Accused No.1 on 21.08.2005 and the Appellant started residing with him and his family. They had a daughter and a son out of this wedlock. On 17.07.2017 on the Appellant’s complaint, FIR No.112 of 2017 was registered by the Atchampet Police Station, district Guntur under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC against six accused persons. It was stated by the Appellant that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000/. Further in April 2015, Accused No.1, the husband, had given her Rs.40,000/- to help the Appellant’s parents financially. However, the Appellant gave that amount to one Subhani who was a tailor in the village stating that he needed it because of the ill-health of his son who was hospitalised and on the promise that he would return the same within four days, however, he failed to do so. The Appellant stated that around that time, disputes came up between her, Accused No.1 - husband and Accused No.2 - mother-in-law in relation to this amount and taking advantage of the dispute, Aluri Ashoka Kumar - Accused No.3, Nathani Sambasivarao– Accused No.5 and Kaka Chanti- Accused No.6 interfered and made baseless attributions against her and on 23.08.2015, Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 – Nathani Srinadh beat her. The Appellant stated that her maternal uncle settled the dispute stating that he would pay the amount if necessary but then again on 25.08.2015, around 10 AM, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 beat the Appellant pushing her hands and legs. Thereafter she returned to her maternal home. She further stated that she tried to return several times to her matrimonial home but was prevented from entering the house. The Police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet only against Accused No.1 – the husband and Accused No.2 – the mother-in-law for offences punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC and dropped the charged against Accused No.3 to Accused No.6.

4. Aggrieved by the Magistrate taking cognizance against Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed by them before the High Court, whereby the High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the proceedings against the two accused for offences under Section 498A IPC giving rise to the present appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The High Court has seemingly accepted the submission made by the Accused-Appellants therein that the allegations against them do not constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC since there is no complaint that they harassed the Appellant demanding any amount of dowry. The Respondents’ argument before the High Court centred around the submission that the explanation appended to Section 498A IPC requires that there must be a demand for dowry to constitute “cruelty” under the said Section.

7. Firstly, the provision under Section 498-A IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman sub