Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10322
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
LUCY JOLLY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5098/2024
BASIL CHANDY, VAVACHAN CHARUTHA, BHAIJU CHANDHANA, BHAIJU BASIL, SAJAN FATHIM, NAVAS KAVYA P.R., LEKSHMI PRIYA V., BASIL SCARIA, GEORGIE SIMON
General allegations without specific details do not constitute cruelty under Section 498A, and family members cannot be implicated without concrete evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 498A - Quashment of final report in a case alleging cruelty and harassment against the second accused, who is the mother-in-law of the complainant - Allegations deemed vague and insufficient to constitute the offence under Section 498A. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Legal Principles - To constitute cruelty under Section 498A, conduct must be of such a nature as to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury; mere allegations without specific details do not satisfy this requirement. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashment of proceedings in a case alleging harassment for dowry and cruelty, asserting that the allegations were vague and lacked specificity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A and highlighted the necessity for specific allegations against each accused.
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of the allegations to constitute cruelty under Section 498A and the validity of implicating family members without specific allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that general allegations without concrete evidence or particularized details cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution under Section 498A, reaffirming the need for specific allegations against each accused.
Result: The final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2025
The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1200/2023 of Manimala Police Station. The offence alleged is one under Section 498A of the Penal Code. The petitioner/A2 seeks quashment of Annexure-2 final report, as also, further proceedings in the said crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the second respondent/defacto complainant, there is no appearance/representation. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, apart from certain vague and general allegations, incapable of constituting the offence under Section 498A , there is nothing in the F.I.S, forming part of Annexure-2 final report, as against the petitioner. Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. One among the allegations levelled is an alleged comment made by the petitioner to her husband, as to why her son (husband of the defacto complainant) takes the defacto complainant for outing, unless the amount demanded has been brought in. The second is a general allegation that the 1st accused, along with the 2nd accused, spoke badly to the defacto complainant over the question of bringing Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs), required for the business of the 1st accused. The third allegation is a query, which the petitioner used to make in every month, after the defacto complainant left to Sharjah, as to why she is not becoming pregnant. These allegations are not capable of attracting the cruelty, envisaged in the explanation to Section 498-A, is the submission made. Learned counsel would also point out that the instant F.I.S. was given on 20.11.2023, after receiving notice for divorce from the 1st accused/husband on 18.01.2023. According to the learned counsel, the facts are squarely in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another [2024 SCC Online SC 3682].
4. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that, there was a demand based on money, which attracts the second limb of the explanation to Section 498-A.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out, the allegations levelled are not sufficient to constitute the offences alleged. The allegations are already recorded, as referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence not repeated. Coming to the first limb of 498-A, the conduct should be of such a nature, so as to drive the women to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women. The allegations levelled would not satisfy the above requirement. Nor is there any reference in the F.I.S. that the conduct has caused serious mental harassment to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Coming to the second limb of the explanation, an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security, by itself, is not sufficient. Essentially, there should be harassment for not meeting that demand. Rather, such harassment should be with a view to coerce the women to meet such unlawful demand. In the instant case, there is no harassment specifically spoken of by the defacto complainant. A general omnibus allegation to the effect that accused nos.1 and 2 used to harass her mentally, for not bringing the amount, is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498-A. The particular role of each of the accused, the approximate date and time at which these offences have been committed etc., are conspicuously absent. A further allegation to the effect that the petitioner/A2 enquired as to why the defacto complainant/R2 is not getting pregnant, also cannot be treated as cruelty, within the scope of the two limbs of the explanation to Section 498-A. The same is the
