[S. 498a IPC] Cruelty Not Dependent On Suicide Or Self-Harm, Causing Grave Mental Or Physical Injury Sufficient To Attract Offence: J&K High Court
Reinforcing the protective scope of Section 498A IPC, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while rejecting two petitions seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under sections 498A and 109 IPC, held that “if the conduct of husband or his relatives is accompanied with an intention to cause grave injury to a woman, whether or not she was driven to commit suicide or inflict grave...
Reinforcing the protective scope of Section 498A IPC, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while rejecting two petitions seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under sections 498A and 109 IPC, held that “if the conduct of husband or his relatives is accompanied with an intention to cause grave injury to a woman, whether or not she was driven to commit suicide or inflict grave injury upon herself, is immaterial, it would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.”
Justice Sanjay Dhar made these critical observations while disposing of two petitions filed by the husband and in-laws of the complainant, Amandeep Kour, who alleged grave physical and mental harassment shortly after her marriage.
Kour had lodged a FIR alleging that she was married to respondent in 2021 and Initially, the relationship was cordial, but she soon faced severe physical and mental abuse from her husband and in-laws.
The husband reportedly left for Canada within a few days of marriage, abandoning her and allegedly treating her as a servant for his parents. She further stated that the in-laws threatened to eliminate her and physically assaulted her. Eventually, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home and left outside her parental house with her belongings.
Despite the marriage being solemnized without dowry by mutual decision, the complainant later faced harassment in relation to dowry and was taunted about her financial status, she alleged in the FIR.
The accused approached the High Court challenging the FIR on grounds that the allegations were vague and general. No conduct amounting to cruelty under Section 498A IPC was demonstrated as there were no specific dowry demands, they argued and added that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
The petitioners relied on Supreme Court decisions in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala (2009) 14 SCC 466 and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 3836, asserting that mere allegations without the woman being driven to suicide or self-injury would not amount to cruelty.
Commenting on the contention of vague allegations as the petitioners argued the FIR was "omnibus," the Court noted the complainant's 7-page statement under Section 161 CrPC provided vivid details dates, incidents of beatings, threats, and abandonment. Witness statements corroborated her claims, the court pointed.
"An FIR is not an encyclopedia of the crime. Details surface during investigation," Justice Dhar remarked, rejecting the "lack of specifics" argument.
Explaining as to what constitutes cruelty under 498A IPC the Court cited Section 498A IPC and its explanations and observed,
“.. as per clause (a) of the Explanation not only the conduct that may drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself would amount to cruelty but even a conduct which causes grave injury to the woman or cause a danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman, would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC”.
The court added,
“Once it is shown that that intention of the husband or his relatives, while resorting to a particular conduct against the woman would lead to grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) of the woman, it amounts to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A IPC
Measuring the allegations on the yardstick of the above explanations and observations Justice Dhar opined,
“.. She has also stated that her husband left for Canada only a few days after the marriage without taking her along with him and without even taking any steps for her travel to Canada to accompany her and instead left her as servant for his parents. These acts clearly amount to grave injury or danger to health (mental and physical) of the complainant. The same fulfils the ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC. Thus, it cannot be stated that no offence is/are made out against the petitioners”.
In alignment with these findings the court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the material on record clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences.
Case Title: Ranjit Kour & Another Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 159