The judgment established the principle that isolated incidents of abuse or bad behavior may not constitute 'cruelty' under section 498-A of the IPC and warned against the potential misuse of this provision in matrimonial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

With consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Applicants seek to quash the FIR No. I-106/2023 registered at Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai and Charge Sheet No.I-152/2023 in R.C.C.No.1273/2023 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vashi, Belapur, Navi Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2. The Applicant No.1 is the mother-in-law and Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the married sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2. The facts narrated in the FIR reveal that the marriage of Respondent No.2 and Nitin Sharma, the son of the Applicant No.1, was solemnized on 08/08/2022. This was their second marriage and each of them has a child from the previous marriage. The Respondent No.2 claims that at the time of wedding ceremony, her husband and his family members demanded several valuable gold items and cash as ‘shagun’ (good luck). When they visited Dehradhun after their marriage, instead of staying in her matrimonial home, they stayed in a hotel. Her husband made her spend Rs.1,50,000/- to purchase laptop for his son and she was made to buy gold bangles for Applicant Nos.2 and 3 on their visit to Jagannathpuri.

4. Respondent No.2 alleged that her husband is alcoholic and would abuse and assault her. He has also retained her two mangalsutra, diamond earrings, diamond ring, diamond nose pin and two gold bangles. She claims that even when she was living separately with her husband, he would not spend enough time with her but would rather spend time with his family. She has levelled allegations of cruelty against her husband and his family members including his minor son from the previous marriage. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, crime was registered against the husband of the Respondent No.2 and his family members and upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submit that the allegations in the FIR as well as the other material which form part of the charge sheet, do not disclose cognizable offence, much less an offence under section 498-A of IPC. He submits that the Respondent No.2 has collected her jewelry (streedhan). He submits that the FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence and hence, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that the facts narrated in the FIR clearly indicate that the Applicants herein had demanded gold jewelry and cash in the form of shagun. The material on record also reveals that the Applicants herein had subjected Respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, and hence, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. The Applicants have invoked the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., which can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In State of Haryana and others v/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 204, the Apex Court has set out by way of illustrations the broad categories of cases in which the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The illustrations relevant to decide the present case are :-

“102. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

…

(3