The conduct of messaging alone does not constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, lacking evidence of potential harm or coercion.

Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Ms. S. N. Thakur, APP for the State/non-applicant no. 1 Mr. Vishal Anand, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2 CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ.

DATED : 11-08-2025.

In an application seeking to quash First Information Report (FIR) and charge-sheet, learned counsel for non-

applicant no. 2 seeks time to file reply.

The counsel for non-applicant no. 2 shall justify filing reply in such proceeding where the law is well settled that the contents of FIR and charge-sheet are to be looked into and if offence is made out, the question of quashing the FIR/charge- sheet does not arrive. At the same time, if the contents of FIR and charge-sheet are accepted on face value and if the offence is not made out, the FIR/charge-sheet ought to be quashed.

We have gone through the FIR and the charge-sheet.

According to non-applicant no. 2, her husband is in relationship with the applicant and, therefore, was harassing her and in doing so, the in-laws have supported the husband. With such allegations, the Investigating Officer has lodged FIR against the husband and in-laws of non-applicant no. 2 as also against the applicant, who is said to be a lady in relationship with non-

applicant no. 2’s husband.

When enquired about the best evidence against the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that excepts for the chats exchanged between the applicant and husband of non-applicant no. 2 which indicate that they were in relationship, there is no other evidence. The question, therefore, is whether the ingredients of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) are attracted.

Section 498-A of the IPC reads as under :-

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation — For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"

means —

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]”

Thus, to attract Section 498-A of the IPC, there has to be allegations against husband or relatives of the husband of subjecting the wife/woman to cruelty. The first explanation defines ‘cruelty’ to mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman.

The allegation here, according to non-applicant no. 2, is that the applicant has exchanged messages which can be said to be a message instigating non-applicant no. 2’s husband to subject non-applicant no. 2 to cruelty.

Learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 has invited our attention to the messages exchanged by the applicant and non-applicant no. 2’s husband. The messages indicate that the applicant had asked non-applicant no. 2’s husband to leave non-applicant no. 2, to which non-applicant no. 2’s husband asked her whether she will reside with him. The applicant said ‘no’.

At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is also married and that may be the reason, why did she refuse to reside with non-applicant no. 2’s husband. As against, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 submits that applicant’s husband has expired.

May be that the applicant’s husband expired but the fact is that she was not willing to reside with non-applicant no. 2’s husband. The moot question, however, is whether such a fact can be said to be cruelty to th