Absence of Dowry Demand Does Not Preclude Prosecution for Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

The applicant (husband) sought to quash FIR No. A-Part-11214001260001/2026 registered at Mahila Police Station, Surat Rural, for offences under Sections 85 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The complainant-wife alleged a history of matrimonial discord since 2011, including being abandoned at her in-laws' home and physical assault with a pipe in 2020.

Previous complaints under Section 125 CrPC and Section 498A IPC had been withdrawn following settlements and assurances by the husband which were allegedly breached.

The applicant contended that the FIR was a result of his inability to find employment in Surat and that proceedings under Section 151 BNSS (erroneously cited as CrPC in arguments) had already been initiated for the same incident.

Chargesheet had already been filed by the time of the hearing.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, specifically regarding physical abuse without a dowry demand, constitute "cruelty" sufficient to maintain a criminal prosecution under the law.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to quash the FIR to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

The court primarily applied Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 498A of the IPC) regarding cruelty to a woman by her husband.

It relied on the precedent Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and Others (2024), which established that "cruelty" is a disjunctive concept; physical or mental harm under clause (a) is sufficient to attract the law even in the absence of a dowry demand under clause (b).

The court applied the seven guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) to determine the limits of inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings.

The Court examined the specific allegations in the FIR, noting detailed instances where the applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant and reneged on undertakings to improve his behavior.

Applying the Aluri Venkata Ramana doctrine, the Court reasoned that the husband's alleged physical abuse and harassment squarely fall within the scope of "cruelty" as defined under the law, regardless of whether a dowry was demanded.

The Court then tested the facts against the Bhajan Lal criteria and found that the allegations were neither "absurd" nor "inherently improbable," and they prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.

Consequently, because a chargesheet had already been filed and the allegations required trial, the Court found no justification to exercise its extraordinary power to quash the proceedings at this stage.

The application for quashing the FIR and staying the proceedings was dismissed.