Specific allegations linking cruelty to unlawful demands warrant framing a Section 498A charge.

The complainant, wife of petitioner no. 1, lodged FIR No. 85/2020 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law.

The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 498A, 379 and 34 IPC and discharged the accused under Sections 406 and 34 IPC.

In revision, the Sessions Court set aside the Section 498A charge against the sister-in-law and the Section 379 charge against all three accused, but upheld the Section 498A charge against the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged the order insofar as it upheld that charge, contending, among other things, that there was no supporting evidence or MLC and that the alleged incident occurred in February 2015, while the FIR was registered in 2020.

1. Whether the Revisional Court’s decision to uphold the charge under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC, given the alleged absence of supporting documents or an MLC and the delay in lodging the FIR.

2. Whether the petitioners could invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to challenge the Revisional Court’s order, in light of the bar on a second revision under Section 397(3) CrPC.

At the stage of framing charges, the court considers whether the record discloses a prima facie case or raises grave suspicion; it must not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously assess the evidence, and the defence on merits is not to be considered at that stage (State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191).

The absence of a document or MLC, by itself, is not a ground for discharge at the charge-framing stage.

For Section 498A IPC, harassment must have the requisite connection with an unlawful demand to fall within Explanation (b); general harassment unconnected with such a demand is insufficient (Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal v. State, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 2044).

Section 397(3) CrPC bars a second revision, and that statutory bar cannot be circumvented by resorting to the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1990 SCC 132).

Interference under Section 482 is limited where the courts below have applied their judicial mind; the petitioner must show that their findings are contrary to law or otherwise infirm.

The Court held that the petitioners’ objections concerning the lack of documents or an MLC could not justify discharge at the charge stage, where a mini-trial was impermissible.

It found that the allegations were not merely general or omnibus: they included demands of ₹20,00,000 and later ₹1,50,000/₹1,40,000, alongside allegations of beating, taunting and insulting the complainant when she did not meet those demands. Those allegations disclosed, at that stage, the requisite nexus between the alleged harassment and unlawful demands, distinguishing Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal.

The Revisional Court’s separate treatment of the sister-in-law’s case also showed that it had considered the allegations against the accused individually.

The Court further noted the statutory bar on a second revision and found no basis for using Section 482 to overcome it.

It dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC.