Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash F.I.R. Against Husband and In-Laws Accused of Cruelty and Abetment to Suicide; “Threats of Divorce and Continuous Harassment Led to Suicide” – Court Upholds Prima Facie Case Against the Accused

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered against the applicants for offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that there was a prima facie case against the applicants for harassment, cruelty, and abetment to suicide. The Court noted that the investigation was not complete and the allegations were serious enough to justify a full trial.

Facts:

The applicants are the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the deceased, who committed suicide. The deceased married the Applicant No.1 on January 3, 2021, and resided with the applicants in a joint family. The respondent, father of the deceased, alleged that his daughter was treated with severe mental and physical cruelty by the applicants, and she was forced to perform all household chores single-handedly. There were continuous demands and threats, and her husband regularly abused her, especially under the influence of alcohol.

After a period of ill-treatment in the joint family, the deceased and her husband moved to Bangalore, where the abuses continued. The deceased’s parents, who visited them in Bangalore, were informed that they should not interfere in their marital life. Later, the deceased moved back to Pune with her husband, where the harassment escalated. On May 28, 2023, Applicant No.1 and his aunt informed the deceased over the phone that they intended to collect his belongings as he was going to divorce her. Later that evening, she locked herself in a room and committed suicide. The Respondent No. 2 subsequently filed the F.I.R.

Issues:

1. Whether the allegations of cruelty and harassment against the applicants justify the continuation of prosecution under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, and 506 IPC?
2. Whether the petition for quashing the F.I.R. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained at this stage?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners argued that:

1. The deceased and Applicant No.1 had been living separately for three months prior to the incident, making the allegations baseless.
2. There was an unexplained delay of twenty days in filing the F.I.R.
3. There was no demand for dowry or ill-treatment by the applicants.
4. The proximity between the alleged acts of harassment and the commission of suicide was not established.
5. The petitioners sought to justify that there was no case to prosecute them based on the contents of the F.I.R.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents contended that:

1. The allegations in the F.I.R. were grave and required complete investigation and trial.
2. Since the deceased committed suicide within two years of marriage, Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act raises a presumption of abetment against the accused.
3. The grounds raised by the petitioners were insufficient to quash the proceedings, given the seriousness of the allegations and the clear role attributed to the accused in the F.I.R.

Analysis of the Law:

Section 306 IPC punishes abetment to commit suicide, which is defined under Section 107 IPC as instigating, engaging in conspiracy, or intentionally aiding in committing the act. The Court highlighted that instigation requires mens rea and the act must be so intense that it drives the victim to commit suicide. Additionally, Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act presumes abetment when a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage due to cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referred to the case of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand to illustrate that instigation must be in close proximity to the act of suicide and must be of such intensity that it compels the victim to take the extreme step. The judgment emphasized that mere harassment is insufficient unless it is severe enough to constitute abetment.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court observed that the F.I.R. prima facie disclosed mental and physical cruelty, continuous harassment, and deliberate acts by the applicants that compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations were corroborated by the proximity between the threats made to her and the timing of the suicide. The Court noted that since the death occurred within two years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act was applicable.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the contents of the F.I.R. disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants and justified the continuation of the prosecution. The petitioners’ defenses, including the delay in filing the F.I.R., could not be tested at this stage. The application to quash the F.I.R. was, therefore, dismissed.

Implications:

The ruling reiterates that in cases of suicide within two years of marriage, the presumption of abetment under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act holds unless sufficiently rebutted. This judgment emphasizes the seriousness with which courts view allegations of harassment and cruelty in matrimonial cases, especially when they result in the extreme step of suicide.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Order for Fresh Driving Test: “Personal Difficulty of Candidate Cannot Undermine a Standardized Selection Process”