The Bombay High Court has ruled that vague allegations and mere suspicion of an alleged extra-marital relationship cannot justify prosecuting a relative under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Holding that criminal law cannot be invoked on the basis of assumptions unsupported by specific material, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the wife of the complainant's husband's cousin while allowing the trial to continue against the remaining accused.
Background of the Case
The petition arose from an FIR registered at Revdanda Police Station, Alibag, in October 2019 under Sections 498A, 107, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that her husband subjected her to cruelty, demanded dowry, assaulted her, and maintained an extra-marital relationship with the petitioner, who is the wife of his cousin brother.
According to the FIR, the complainant suspected the affair because her husband frequently spoke to the petitioner, chatted with her on the phone, uploaded her photographs on social media, and had the name of the petitioner's son engraved on his hand. She further claimed that the petitioner instigated her husband to ill-treat her.
Seeking relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner requested the High Court to quash the proceedings against her.
Court's Observations
Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale examined the allegations against the petitioner separately from those made against the husband. The Court noted that while the FIR contained serious accusations against the husband relating to alleged assault, dowry demands, and harassment, the allegations against the petitioner rested only on suspicion of an alleged relationship.
The Court found no material indicating that the petitioner had participated in any act of cruelty, dowry demand, physical assault, or criminal intimidation. It also observed that the petitioner and her family did not reside with the complainant and her husband.
Referring to a series of Supreme Court judgments on misuse of Section 498A, the Court reiterated that relatives cannot be prosecuted merely on the basis of general or omnibus allegations. Criminal prosecution requires clear and specific accusations supported by credible material.
The bench observed:
“Bald, sweeping allegations which are unsupported by credible material and based on mere suspicion cannot be the basis to invoke the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC.”
The Court further explained that Section 498A applies only where there is intentional cruelty of the nature contemplated by law or harassment connected with unlawful dowry demands. Ordinary marital discord or suspicion, without supporting evidence, does not satisfy these legal ingredients.
On the allegation of an alleged extra-marital relationship, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that even if such a relationship is assumed, it does not automatically amount to "cruelty" under Section 498A unless there is additional material showing conduct severe enough to attract the penal provision.
The bench observed:
“Mere unfounded suspicion cannot substitute legal or cogent evidence.”
Court's Decision
Concluding that the allegations against the petitioner were vague, general, and unsupported by credible evidence, the Bombay High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the criminal proceedings against her.
However, the Court clarified that its order was confined to the petitioner alone. Since the husband had not approached the Court for similar relief, and the principal allegations in the FIR were directed against him, the criminal trial would continue against the remaining accused in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Mrs. N G v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2021
Judge: Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Decision Date: 10 June 2026
