The Bombay High Court recently observed that mental cruelty is an abstract concept and can be committed even if in-laws reside separately.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur dismissed an application filed by relatives of a man seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them filed by his wife.
The complainant has alleged that the applicants demanded dowry as well as subjected her to cruelty. The applicants were booked under sections 498-A, 323, 524 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The court noted that the allegations and the witness statements indicate that at some point or the other, the applicants gathered at the complainantโs marital residence. Further, they also talked personally or on phone with the complainant. During these encounters, the complaint alleged, applicants subjected her to humiliation, harassment, and cruelty.
“Here, in this case, for meting out mental cruelty to non-applicant no. 2, of course, in prima facie way, these applicants seems to have employed modern means of communication i.e. telephone etc. and on many occasions, they have also remained present in the company of non-applicant no. 2. Therefore, this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed to not have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner,” said the court.
The court said that there is a prima facie case from the allegations despite the applicants residing away from the complainant. Cruelty is not only physical but can also be mental, the court observed.
It noted that there are allegations against each applicant in the FIR and they are proved with statements, that are indicative of the mental cruelty handed out by them to the complainant.
According to the FIR, one of the applicants threatened that she will use her influence with the police to scuttle criminal proceedings against the complainant if she didnโt accept the “demand and obnoxious behavior of her husband”.
The court said that this allegation is quite serious and is a major reason to direct that the applicants be put on trial.
The court accepted that “no offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC would be made out against the other woman – one of the applicants, merely because the complainant’s husband had illicit relation with her. However, in this case, prima facie case is made out against that applicant not for her status as the ‘other woman’ but in her capacity as cousin-sister of the husband”, the court said.
The applicants contended that no significance could be attached to the allegations in the FIR. The court disagreed with this contention observing that FIR sets the criminal law and motion.
“โฆthough usually not a substantive piece of evidence by itself, it (FIR) nevertheless forms a foundation of a criminal case. No strong edifice of a criminal case can be built unless its foundation is sound,” the court observed.
If the FIR does not contain allegations of cruelty, no criminal case can be built against the accused; but if the foundation is strong, it would give rise to a strong criminal case which is the case in the present matter, the court observed.
The mental cruelty is an abstract concept and it is a matter of experience for a person who is subjected to cruelty โฆ Sometimes, the taunts might be seen to be innocuous by one person, while they may not be necessarily so perceived by another person โฆ Such being the nature of mental cruelty, it is not necessary that it must take place in the physical presence of persons and that it can be handed out even from a distant place,” the court observed.
The court said that applicants abused the process of law despite knowing that the allegations against them require consideration on merits. Therefore, it imposedย Rs. 10000/- on the applicants and dismissed their application.
Case Title โ Sunita Kumari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.