A Division Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale refused to discharge a deceased woman’s husband and in-laws from allegations of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
![[Section 498A IPC] Delay of Complaint For 12 Years Doesn't Rule Out Cruelty Towards Wife: Supreme Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Court-No-6-copy-2.jpg?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (10th Dec) emphasized that a delay in filing a complaint regarding marital cruelty does not necessarily negate the occurrence of cruelty or harassment faced by a woman during her marriage.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale refused to discharge a deceased woman’s husband and in-laws from allegations of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused argued that no complaint of cruelty or harassment had been made during the twelve years of the couple’s marriage and that the complaint was filed only after the woman died by suicide. However, the Court rejected this defense, holding that the absence of complaints over the years does not automatically prove that cruelty or harassment did not occur.
“The argument that the deceased had not lodged a single complaint of cruelty or harassment in twelve years of marriage cannot be accepted. The lack of complaints does not ensure the absence of such instances,” the Court stated.
The Court, however, discharged the accused from the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. It found no direct connection between the alleged acts of cruelty such as forcing the deceased to sell her ornaments years before her death and her suicide.
READ ALSO: “Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court
“Allegations such as selling gold ornaments followed by harassment, even if true, do not suggest intent to instigate or provoke suicide. These issues, while concerning, do not indicate that the deceased was left with no option other than to end her life. There is no evidence of mens rea to instigate the suicide,” the Court noted.
BRIEF FACTS
The case after a complaint by the deceased woman’s father, who alleged that his daughter was subjected to physical and mental harassment and forced to sell her ornaments, which were part of her streedhan. He claimed that this harassment eventually led to her suicide.
Earlier, the accused had unsuccessfully challenged the FIR in the High Court and later withdrew their appeal to the Supreme Court. A discharge application filed before the Sessions Court was also dismissed, and this dismissal was upheld by the High Court, prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court again.
While the Court allowed the appeal partially by discharging the accused from the suicide abetment charge, it upheld the continuation of proceedings under Section 498A IPC.
“Upon reviewing the FIR, the Investigating Officer’s findings, and statements from the deceased’s relatives, it is evident that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws,”
the Court concluded.
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Tejas Barot and advocates Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala and Aditya Tripathi. Advocates Swati Ghildiyal, Devyani Bhatt, and Neha Singh appeared for the respondent.
Case Title: Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat.
