Blog

Bombay High Court Quashed FIR Under Section 498 A IPC

Regular Criminal Case No.290/2024 ; FIR (Crime No.301/2023) ; Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC

Case Summerized by Advocate Rashid at Prime Advocates Delhi

Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench delivered a noteworthy ruling on August 8, 2025, quashing an FIR lodged under the much-litigated Section 498A IPC. Court while quashing the FIR held that Remarks on Wife Clothes & Cooking Does Not Amount To Grave Cruelty.

Facts Of The Cases

Wife Allegations

• The Husband started mistreating her after one month or one and half months.
• She got the knowledge about ailment of husband when she got hospital documents. It is then the wife came to know that he was taking treatment from a psychologist. She came to know that he is not fit physically and mentally and all this information was suppressed by husband at the time of marriage.
• On 15.05.2022 both Sisters in Laws and Mother in law raised disputes with her and gave insulting treatment.
• Demanded Rs.15,00,000/ for purchasing Flat.

Why the Court Quashed the Charges

1. Pre-marital Transparency
   Chats exchanged before marriage—part of the formal charge sheet—clearly flagged the husband’s medical treatment. The court held this foreclosed any claim of suppressed disclosure.
2. Nature of “Cruelty”
   Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code “cruelty” means – any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely todrive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; and as per Explanation (b) the “cruelty” means – harassment of the woman where such meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to. Making annoying statements that informant was not wearing proper clothes, was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment.. Hence mere Remarks on Wife Clothes & Cooking Does Not Amount To Cruelty
3. Lack of Corroboration
   No neighbour or neutral witness was examined to validate the severity of alleged harassment. In the court’s view, the prosecuting agency failed to probe beyond the informant’s narrative.
4. Inconsistent Dowry Allegations
   The Rs.15 lakh demand appeared unfounded—especially since the groom already owned a flat at marriage.

Conclusion
The Aurangabad Bench thus allowed the Criminal petition and the quashed the FIR .