IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(ARISING FROM SLP(CRL.) NO(S).9243 OF 2024)

ALURI VENKATA RAMANA ...APPELLANT(S)

Versus

ALURI THIRUPATHI RAO & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal before us arises out of order dated 04.07.2023
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
whereby the High Court has quashed Criminal Case no.428
of 2018 under Section 482 CrPC pending against Accused
No.1 - Respondent No.1 and Accused No.2- Respondent No.2.
Aggrieved, the Appellant being the de facto Complainant is
before us.
3. The factual background of the present case is such that the
Appellant is the wife and Accused No.1 is her husband and
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Accused No.2 is her mother-in-law. The marriage of the
NEETU KHAJURIA

Appellant was solemnized with Accused No.1 on 21.08.2005

Date: 2025.02.19
11:15:31 IST
Reason:

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 1

 and the Appellant started residing with him and his family.
They had a daughter and a son out of this wedlock. On
17.07.2017 on the Appellant’s complaint, FIR No.112 of 2017
was registered by the Atchampet Police Station, district
Guntur under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC against
six accused persons. It was stated by the Appellant that at
the time of her marriage, her parents gave cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments worth Rs.10,00,000/.
Further in April 2015, Accused No.1, the husband, had given
her Rs.40,000/- to help the Appellant’s parents financially.
However, the Appellant gave that amount to one Subhani
who was a tailor in the village stating that he needed it
because of the ill-health of his son who was hospitalised and
on the promise that he would return the same within four
days, however, he failed to do so. The Appellant stated that
around that time, disputes came up between her, Accused
No.1 - husband and Accused No.2 - mother-in-law in relation
to this amount and taking advantage of the dispute, Aluri
Ashoka Kumar - Accused No.3, Nathani Sambasivarao–
Accused No.5 and Kaka Chanti- Accused No.6 interfered and
made baseless attributions against her and on 23.08.2015,
Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and Accused No.4 – Nathani
Srinadh beat her. The Appellant stated that her maternal
uncle settled the dispute stating that he would pay the

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 2

 amount if necessary but then again on 25.08.2015, around
10 AM, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5 beat the Appellant
pushing her hands and legs. Thereafter she returned to her
maternal home. She further stated that she tried to return
several times to her matrimonial home but was prevented
from entering the house. The Police investigated the matter
and filed a charge sheet only against Accused No.1 – the
husband and Accused No.2 – the mother-in-law for offences
punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC and
dropped the charged against Accused No.3 to Accused No.6.
4. Aggrieved by the Magistrate taking cognizance against
Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, the petition under Section
482 CrPC was filed by them before the High Court, whereby
the High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the
proceedings against the two accused for offences under
Section 498A IPC giving rise to the present appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. The High Court has seemingly accepted the submission made
by the Accused-Appellants therein that the allegations
against them do not constitute the offence under Section
498A IPC since there is no complaint that they harassed the
Appellant demanding any amount of dowry. The
Respondents’ argument before the High Court centred
around the submission that the explanation appended to

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 3

 Section 498A IPC requires that there must be a demand for
dowry to constitute “cruelty” under the said Section.
7. Firstly, the provision under Section 498-A IPC must be
examined. The said provision reads as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty”
means—
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”

8. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year1983 with

the primary objective of protecting married women from
cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws. The

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 4

 section provides a broad and inclusive definition of "cruelty,"
encompassing both physical and mental harm to the
woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of
harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into
fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security,
including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision
also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a
woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty.
9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to
Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b),
independent to the “wilful conduct” described in clause (a),
thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is
significant to note that the inclusion of the word “or” at the
end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the
purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct
that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related
to unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms
of cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related
demand does not preclude the application of the section in
cases where there is mental or physical harassment
unrelated to dowry. In interpreting the provision, it is crucial
to consider the broader objective behind its introduction—to
safeguard women from all forms of cruelty, regardless of

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 5

 whether the nature of the harm inflicted includes a specific
demand for dowry or not.
10. The statement of objects and reasons for the
introduction of this provision in the Indian Penal Code by The
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No.45 of
1983) reads as under –

"The increasing number of Dowry Deaths is a matter of

serious concern. The extent of the evil has been
commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to
examine the working of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Cases of cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the
husband which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the
hapless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction
of the cases involving such cruelty. It is therefore proposed
to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal
effectively not only with cases of Dowry Death but also
cases of cruelty to married woman by their in laws."

11. It is relevant to note the last line which explains that

the aim for the introduction of Section 498A in the IPC is not
only to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases
of cruelty to married woman by their in laws. A reasonable
interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this section

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 6

 goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to dowry
demand.

12. In the judgment of U.Suvetha v. State1 this Court

outlined the necessary ingredients required to establish an
offence under Section 498A of the IPC, as follows:
“7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:
(a)The woman must be married;
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown
either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her
husband.”

13. From the above ingredients reiterated by this Court, it

is clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre-
requisite element to constitute "cruelty" under Section 498A
IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two
broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the provision,
namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or mental
harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce the woman
or her family to meet any unlawful demand (clause b).
Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of a dowry

1
(2009)6 SCC 757

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 7

 demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A
IPC and make the offence punishable under the law.

14. Further, in the judgment of Arvind Singh v. State of

Bihar2, this Court observed that –
“25. word ‘cruelty’ in common English acceptation denotes
a state of conduct which is painful and distressing to
another. The legislative intent in Section 498–A is clear
enough to indicate that in the event of there being a state
of conduct by the husband to the wife or by any relative of
the husband which can be attributed to be painful or
distressing, the same would be within the meaning of the
section”.

15. The impugned judgment of the High Court carefully

examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two
distinct limbs of Section 498A IPC. The High Court correctly
observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the
accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to
in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as
cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful
demand for property or valuable security, as specified in
clause (b). The High Court rightly rejected this contention.
However, following this observation, the High Court also

2
(2001) 6 SCC 407

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 8

 noted that the Appellant did not specifically allege a demand
for property or valuable security, and further concluded that
the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the
Appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged
under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The judgment of the
High Court primarily focused on the issue of whether a dowry
demand is a necessary element for the applicability of Section
498A IPC. The conclusion it arrived at was that the two
clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively, thereby
confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does not
preclude the application of the section. Despite this, the High
Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the
accused under Section 498A IPC. Notably, the High Court
failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the allegations
made by the Appellant—specifically, that she had been
physically beaten—did not amount to "cruelty" under Section
498A IPC. The High Court's decision to quash the
proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced by the
lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without
addressing the broader implications of the allegations of
physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty"
as contemplated by the provision.

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 9

 16. Before this Court, the Respondents have contended
that the wilful conduct described in clause (a) of the
Explanation to Section 498A IPC should only be treated as
cruelty if it is accompanied by a dowry demand as outlined
in clause (b), or that an unlawful demand for property or
valuable security, standing alone, constitutes cruelty under
Section 498A. However, in light of the discussion above, it is
evident that this submission is without merit and, therefore,
is not accepted by this Court.

17. Therefore, upon careful examination of the relevant

provisions of Section 498A IPC, the precedents cited, and the
factual matrix of the case, it is apparent that the High Court’s
decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Accused
Nos. 1 and 2 was flawed. Section 498A IPC recognizes two
distinct forms of cruelty: one involving physical or mental
harm in clause (a) and the other involving harassment linked
to unlawful demands for property or valuable security in
clause (b). These two provisions are to be read disjunctively,
meaning that the presence of a dowry demand is not a
prerequisite for establishing cruelty under the Section. The
allegations made by the Appellant, which detail instances of
physical abuse and harassment, fall within the scope of
"cruelty" as defined under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 10

 absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate the
applicability of the provision where acts of physical violence
and mental distress have been demonstrated. The core of the
offence under Section 498A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and
does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.
Therefore, the High Court erred in quashing all criminal
proceedings against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the trial ought
to have been allowed to be carried out.

18. In light of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed,

and the decision of the High Court is set aside, thereby
reinstating the criminal proceedings against the Respondents
under Section 498A IPC. Trial is directed to proceed as per
law.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………. .J.
[VIKRAM NATH]

……………………………. .J.
[ PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 12, 2024.

Crl.A. NO……/2025 @ SLP(Crl.) No..9243 OF 2024 . 11