The Bombay High Court has held that the demand for excessive money or property without any harassment is not a sufficient reason for registration of an offense under Section 498A of the IPC. A division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice NJ Jamadar was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by relatives of Krishna Lohia. Whose wife Priyanka filed an FIR against him.

Case background. 

In the FIR, the complainant alleged that on every festive occasion, Krishna's family members demanded clothes and money from her parents and fulfilled those demands. She also alleged that whenever her husband's relatives came home They used to insult him by calling him fat and black. 


According to the petitioner, the complainant Priyanka has tried to implicate him in a false case with 'false intent'. 

The petitioner said, 'We are living separately and we have never shared a house with Priyanka. We occasionally visit the complainant's matrimonial home. We had no reason or opportunity to harass the complainant. 

Submissions and decisions


 Advocate Subhash Jha appeared for the petitioner and said that even though the allegations in the FIR have been taken as a truth, there is no case against the petitioners for making such an offense which would lead to prosecution while the complainant Lawyer Satyavrat Joshi said that the FIR has made specific allegations that implicate the petitioners. 


After hearing the arguments of both sides, the court accepted


 Cruelty to come under the purview of Section 498A, which motivates a woman to commit suicide or a serious injury to her life or organ or health has been identified or threatened or to fulfill an unlawful demand for property Forced with him or anyone related to him. Without the harassment of anyone, only the demand for excess wealth or property will not come under the purview of Section 498A. There should be a connection between the demand and the harassment caused by that demand.







Subsequently, the bench investigated various allegations against the petitioners. 


"On the basis of the above legal status, if the allegations leveled above are weighed, it becomes clear that the first charge of the complainant, after being transferred to Juhu in 2010, is of a general nature. 

The second allegation by all the members of Krishna's family to demand money clothes and jewelery on every occasion of the festival is also of a general nature and is levied without any specific instance. 

The third allegation of the complainant that all the family members insulted him by calling him black is by nature omnipotent. On this insistence, the fact that the petitioner resides separately from the complainant and Krishna is of vital importance. The said factor is to erase the credibility of the general allegations in the first, specific context of person, time and place.


 The court referred to some of the remarks made by the Supreme Court in Priti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand regarding the allegations against those close to her husband. "We are of the view that the petitioners are accused of offenses punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, designed to harass and humiliate the petitioners, simply because they are related to Krishna. In these circumstances, prosecution proceedings Continuing would be an abuse of the process of law. Forcing the petitioners to undergo trial would cause grave injustice to them. "