{"id":342960,"date":"2025-03-05T11:00:29","date_gmt":"2025-03-05T05:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=342960"},"modified":"2025-03-08T09:35:20","modified_gmt":"2025-03-08T04:05:20","slug":"instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> The present application was filed for quashing FIR dated 20-10-2023 registered with Police Station, Ambajogai, Beed and by way of an amendment for quashing proceedings in a case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Beed (‘the ASJ’), for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a>, 376(1)<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a>, 377<\/a>, 406<\/a>3<\/sup><\/a>, 354<\/a>4<\/sup><\/a>, 323<\/a>5<\/sup><\/a>, 500<\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>, 506<\/a>7<\/sup><\/a> read with Section 34<\/a>8<\/sup><\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi*<\/span> and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that Respondent 2 with some ulterior motive was levelling allegations against brothers-in-law, uncles, and aunt of her husband, thereby taking vindictive attitude. The Court opined that instigation, or common intention could not be the basis on which the offence under Section 498-A of IPC could be proved, therefore, the Court held that the proceedings pending before the ASJ stands quashed and set aside against the said relatives of Respondent 2’s husband.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

In the present case, at the time of talks which took place for marriage settlement at the house of Applicant 1, Respondent 2 made allegations against her husband regarding offence under Section 377 of IPC. Respondent 2 had stated that when she had informed about the said acts to the applicants-other accused persons, that is, her sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and husband’s uncles and aunt, they did not support her and threatened her that she should behave the way her husband wanted to, otherwise she should take divorce.<\/p>\n

Respondent 2 stated that after marriage, she went to stay with her husband in Pune, where she came to know that her husband was not earning at all. On 20-2-2023, she came to her matrimonial home and at that time also, she told her grievances against her husband regarding unnatural offence, to applicants, but later she was abused and assaulted by her husband. She further stated that she was defamed by her husband by saying that she was a person of third gender. Respondent 2 submitted that applicants conspired to show that she was mentally unstable and thus took her to the doctor. Further, she stated that on 22-2-2023, the applicants made her naked to check her genital and on objecting the same, she was assaulted.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that if such heinous act was done to her, it was for her to immediately approach the police, but she lodged FIR only on 20-10-2023, that is, after about 8 months. The Court noted that Respondent 2 did not state that she had immediately informed her parents about the same and she even alleged that she was intentionally taken to a gynecologist on 14-3-2023. The Court further noted that she had also alleged that the doctor, after examining her, stated that there was no physical fault in her, but all the accused said that they had brought Respondent 2 to prepare false documents.<\/p>\n

The Court considered the documents from the doctor, to which Respondent referred to, and opined that the grievance before the said doctor was different and it reflected the presence of her along with her husband only. The Court noted that the doctor was told that there were quarrels between husband and Respondent 2, because of which they were getting headache, suspicion over another and it was also affecting their physical relations. It was also stated that financial condition in the matrimonial home was not sound compared to her parental home and, therefore, she was having difficulty in adjusting herself. The Court found that the doctor gave a couple counseling and to relax and remove stress, he gave medicines and there was no such document which would show that Respondent 2 was declared or considered to be a mentally challenged person.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that such allegations could not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC as each person should act in his own way and the said act independently should amount to cruelty. The Court opined that instigation, or common intention could not be the basis on which the offence under Section 498-A of IPC could be proved.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that Respondent 2 with some ulterior motive was levelling allegations against brothers-in-law and uncles, and aunt of her husband, thereby taking vindictive attitude. The Court opined that it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial. The Court thus held that the proceedings pending before the ASJ stands quashed and set aside against Applicants 2, 4 and 6 to 9 and the criminal application stood disposed of as withdrawn, after disinclination, as against Applicants 1, 3, and 5.<\/p>\n

[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 423<\/a>, decided on 21-02-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Applicants:<\/span> Advocate Ashwini A. Lomte;<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> APP R.P. Gour for Respondent 1; Advocate V.A. Sayyed for Respondent 2.<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

1.<\/a> Corresponding Sections 85<\/a> and 86<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS, 2023’)<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Section 64<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Section 316(2)<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Section 74<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Section 115(2)<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Section 356(2)<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Sections 351(2)<\/a> and 351(3)<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Section 3(5)<\/a> of BNS, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The allegations submitted by Respondent 2 cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 as each person shall act in his own way and the said act independently shall amount to cruelty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,31591,2570,47081,79392,71795,31299],"class_list":["post-342960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-common-intention","tag-Cruelty","tag-instigation","tag-justice-sanjay-a-deshmukh","tag-justice-vibha-kankanwadi","tag-section-498-a-ipc"],"yoast_head":"\nInstigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-05T05:30:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-08T04:05:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/\",\"name\":\"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-05T05:30:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-08T04:05:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-03-05T05:30:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-08T04:05:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/","name":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-03-05T05:30:29+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-08T04:05:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that instigation, or common intention could not be the mere basis to prove cruelty under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/05\/instigation-or-common-intention-cannot-be-mere-basis-to-prove-cruelty-u-s-498a-ipc-bomhc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Instigation, or common intention cannot be mere basis to prove cruelty under S.498-A IPC: Bombay HC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225281,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/07\/bom-hc-a-fatal-impulse-or-an-ill-fated-thought-of-the-deceased-cannot-fray-the-fabric-of-s-306-ipc-acquittal-of-in-laws-for-abetting-suicide-of-woman-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | A fatal impulse or an ill-fated thought of the deceased cannot fray the fabric of S. 306 IPC; Acquittal of in-laws for abetting suicide of woman upheld","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the respondent-accused were acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A\u00a0(husband or relative of a woman subjecting her to cruelty)\u00a0and Section 306\u00a0(abetment of suicide)\u00a0read with Section 34\u00a0(acts done by several persons in furtherance of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223482,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/24\/bom-hc-explains-abetment-by-instigation-while-acquitting-in-laws-of-offences-punishable-under-ss-306-and-498-a-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":1},"title":"Bom HC explains “abetment by instigation” while acquitting in-laws of offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 498-A IPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 read with Section 34 Penal Code, 1860. The accused were the in-laws of the deceased. The complainant (father of the deceased)and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276290,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/29\/bombay-high-court-mere-use-of-the-word-harassment-mentally-and-physically-not-sufficient-to-attract-ingredients-of-s-498-a-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":2},"title":"Bombay High Court | Mere use of the word harassment ‘mentally and physically’ not sufficient to attract ingredients of S. 498-A IPC","author":"Editor","date":"October 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Bombay High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh S Patil,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329404,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/27\/bombay-hc-quashes-s-498-a-proceedings-against-paramour-of-husband\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":3},"title":"Read why Bombay HC quashed S. 498-A IPC proceedings initiated against husband\u2019s paramour by wife","author":"Editor","date":"August 27, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cFor the attraction of Section 498-A, cruelty shall be inflicted upon the wife either by the husband or a relative of the husband; a paramour in extra-marital affair is not a relative of the husband.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289251,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/12\/cruelty-against-married-woman-latest-supreme-court-judgments-on-498a-in-2022\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":4},"title":"Safeguarding Dignity or Misuse? Latest Supreme Court Judgments discussing Section 498-A IPC","author":"Ridhi","date":"April 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court continues to shape the interpretation and application of Section 498-A IPC, balancing the need to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment with concerns over potential misuse. Recent rulings provide significant clarity on the scope and limitations of this provision, reaffirming its importance while addressing safeguards to prevent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law made Easy"","block_context":{"text":"Law made Easy","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/law-made-easy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Supreme Court Judgment on 498-A","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/Latest-Supreme-Court-Judgment-on-498-A.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":340791,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/07\/limitation-for-offence-punishable-under-s-498-a-ipc-commences-from-last-act-of-cruelty-bomhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":342960,"position":5},"title":"Limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC commences from the last act of cruelty: Bombay HC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A1 of IPC does not continue for indefinite period as such interpretation will render Section 4682 of CrPC nugatory\/otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of IPC which does not appear to be the legislature\u2019s intention.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=342960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342960\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=342960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=342960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=342960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}