The judgment establishes that mental cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC is not limited to physical presence and can be inflicted through modern means of communication. It also clarifies that distant relatives can be charged under Section 498-A based on the definition of 'relative' and previous case law.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for State, who has assisted this Court.

2. This is application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) vide Crime No. 201/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 524 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also consequent charge-sheet registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 2688/2022 pending before Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.

3. We have not yet issued any notice to the non-applicants as we would like to consider as to whether or not the applicants have any case deserving issuance of notice on merit to the non-applicants. In order to satisfy this Court on this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted his argument and also prayed for grant of stay to the criminal proceeding initiated in pursuance of charge-sheet no. 183/2022, bearing R.C.C. No. 2688/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, M. V. Court, Nagpur. We have also heard learned APP.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the husband of non-applicant no. 2 (complainant) - Akash Bhaskar has not filed this application but the distant relatives have filed this application, seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. He submits that there are neither any specific allegations made against any of these applicants nor is there any material showing that any of these applicants had resided together with non-applicant no. 2 and her husband nor any of these applicants fall within the definition of the relatives, so as to attribute to them any such cruelty as is complemented under Section 498-A of the IPC. He further submits that even the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has closed the Domestic Violence proceeding against respondent no. 2 therein i.e. applicant no. 1- Sunita Kumari W/o. Ram Sevek on the ground that she never shared any household with non-applicant no. 2 herein. He places reliance upon the case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police [(2009) 6 SCC 757].

5. According to the learned APP for the State, if one reads carefully the FIR and also the statements of witnesses, one would find that there is sufficient material, which would necessitate framing of charge against the applicants and they being put on trial as there are specific allegations made against each of the applicants, which prima facie amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. He also submits that the facts of case of U. Suvetha (supra) being different, the case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

6. 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.

7. These allegations in the FIR some of which can be found in the statements of the witnesses show that these applicants, prima facie, subjected non-applicant no. 2 to humiliation, harassment and cruelty of such a nature as is contemplated under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, we are of the view that there is prima facie case made out against each of the applicants, inspite of their sometimes residing away from the place where non-applicant no. 2 resided. One cannot forget the fact that cruelty as envisaged u