The Bombay High Court has ruled that in order to prove an offence under Section 498A, a woman has to be subjected to cruelty continuously in close proximity to the time of lodging the complaint.
“It is well settled that to prove offence under Section 498-A, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty,” the court said.
The order was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Anuja Prabhudesai and Justice NR Borkar on a petition filed by an elderly couple, who were booked under Section 498A based on a complaint filed by their daughter-in-law.
As per the complainant, she had married the adopted son of the petitioners in 2018 and lived with him in Dubai. However, when she returned to India, she stayed with her in-laws. The woman complained that her mother-in-law used to instigate fights over trivial issues, while her father-in-law used to taunt her. She further stated that her husband subjected her to both mental and physical cruelty.
Despite the High Court passing an interim order, the investigating officer went ahead and filed a charge sheet, the Division Bench noted.
It said the arbitrary manner in which the investigating agency probed this case indicated that the action of the Investigating Officer was to overreach the order of the Court, which cannot be countenanced and in fact needs to be deprecated.
It further pointed out that freezing of bank accounts was manifestly arbitrary and against the mandate of law.
It said such drastic and high-handed action by the Investigating Officer compelled the petitioner to beg and borrow money from their relatives for their survival and sustenance, thus striking at the very right to live with human dignity.
The High Court observed that despite there being no prima facie material to show the involvement of petitioners in the commission of any cognisable offence, they have been dragged into a matrimonial dispute.
The Bench noted that in the absence of prima facie material, compelling an innocent person to approach the Court for discharge, quashing or to go through a trial and thereby subjecting him to mental trauma, humiliation, stigmatisation and loss of reputation would imperil his personal liberty, which was sacred and sacrosanct.
(Case title: ABC vs State of Maharashtra)