Calling Wife 'Stupid', 'Useless' Cannot By Itself Amount To Cruelty: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Husband Over Wife's Suicide

Calling one's wife “stupid” and “useless” cannot, by itself, qualify as cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has observed while quashing criminal proceedings against a man accused of abetting his wife's suicide.

The Court held that such remarks, even if accepted prima facie, may at best reflect a spouse's temperament and cannot be equated with criminal intimidation or grievous hurt to make him criminally liable for the wife's suicide, particularly in the absence of supporting material.

"A temperamental issue of a spouse cannot be equated with the offence of criminal intimidation or grievous hurt so as to make him criminally liable for the suicide of his wife as the same tantamounts to abuse of process of law, particularly when material in support of the same is conspicuous by its absence."

The Court made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against a husband accused of dowry death, cruelty and other offences following the suicide of his wife in Canada.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 304B, 323, 498A, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Sections 80, 115(2), 85, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023/BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act) against a man whose wife died by suicide in Toronto, Canada. The Court held that there was no evidence of any dowry demand or cruelty and no nexus between the allegations and the death, and that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Manmohan observed so while setting aside the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), by which it refused to quash the proceedings against the husband while quashing them against his parents and sister.

The appellant married the deceased in 2021, and the couple moved to Toronto in 2022. In 2023, she died by jumping from the 22nd floor of their apartment building, and had left a handwritten note that was recovered from the apartment. “I failed in my life. It's been more than a year but still struggling to find a job... I don't want to live so I am leaving,” the note read.

Her father filed an FIR alleging dowry demands of 15 tolas of gold before marriage, a gold ring and bracelet at the first Diwali after marriage, and three tolas of gold later in 2022. He also alleged that the husband abused her and called her “stupid and useless.”

The Canadian Coroner's investigation statement and the Toronto Police closure report of 2024 found no signs of struggle or foul play. The handwriting in the note matched the deceased's, and CCTV footage showed the husband was not at home at the time of the alleged incident. However, the Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR against him, citing allegations of illegal gratification of dowry and mental cruelty. A chargesheet was subsequently filed and non-bailable warrants were issued against the husband.

The aggrieved husband approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in 2025, in which the Supreme Court issued notice directing that no coercive steps be taken against him.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner (husband) argued that the allegations were general, that the suicide note exonerated him, and that the Canadian reports showed no foul play.

Per contra, the respondent (prosecution/State) argued that the investigation revealed repeated mental and physical violence over dowry demands, that the suicide note's request to donate organs was improbable given the nature of the fall, and urged for custodial interrogation. Additionally, the complainant argued that Canadian authorities erred in treating the case as suicide when it was a “dowry death” under Section 304B IPC, a provision not found in Canadian law.

The bench considered the submissions and with regards to raising dowry allegations, it observed that “from that date until her death on 11.06.2023, there was not even a whiff of allegation regarding any demand for dowry by the appellant or his family.” It also noted that the dowry allegations related to 2021 and 2022, while the FIR was lodged only after the death, which “leaves considerable room for doubt and suspicion.”

With regards to the suicide note, the Court observed that the note does not mention the appellant or his family. It observed that had there been “even an iota of mental or physical agony caused by the unlawful demands of dowry,” it would naturally have found mention in the note. On the 15 tolas of gold, the Court noted that the complainant himself stated in the statement given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC/now Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/BNSS) that it was given to both the appellant and the deceased. It held that this “cannot be construed as dowry, since it was given not merely to the appellant but also to the daughter, as a wedding gift, a tradition quite common in Indian households, when not attributed to a demand as dowry.”

On the Diwali gifts, the bench observed that on the first Diwali after marriage “usually both families exchange gifts such as new clothes, jewellery, and sweets as a tradition.” It said it was very plausible that the complainant extended the same courtesy to his son-in-law and his parents.“In these circumstances, it is very plausible that, while extending gifts to his own daughter on the occasion of Diwali, respondent No.2 extended the same courtesy to his son-inlaw and his parents, as a part of custom and tradition. To taint this exchange between the parties with a criminal colour, without any antecedents or substantial material on record, runs afoul of the very basis of the case,” the bench observed.

With respect to the Rs 1,00,000 transferred by the deceased's brother, the Court noted that the transfer was made around the time the appellant booked her flight tickets to India, and that his bank statement showed multiple transactions. It, thus, held that “singling out any one transaction, out of context, cannot be determined to be inculpatory.”

With regards to Section 304B IPC allegations, the bench held that the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence or material to show that the appellant made illegal dowry demands with a reasonable nexus to the suicide.

“In absence of any evidence to support the allegation of demand for dowry, the offence under Section 304B cannot be attracted,” it held.

With regards to the allegation of verbal abuse, the bench observed as follows:

“The allegation that the appellant used to call the deceased 'stupid' and 'useless', even if accepted prima facie, cannot to any extent qualify as an offence of cruelty or criminal intimidation. At best, it reflects on the temperament of the husband, but it cannot be given a criminal colour so grave as to become the reason for the suicide of his wife.”

Further, the Court found the allegations made under Sections 323, 498A and 504 IPC vague and omnibus, with no specific instances of harassment described.

“The term 'cruelty' cannot be established without specific instances of commission or omission,” it held. It also held that “mere general allegations of harassment, without specifics against such persons, would not suffice to continue criminal proceedings.”

Additionally, the Court also cautioned that courts must be extremely careful and cautious in matrimonial cases, where allegations “have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of law.”

Expressing sympathy for the family, it observed as follows:

“We understand the plight and pain of the family members of the deceased who have gone through the tragedy of losing their daughter but the husband and the in-laws, cannot be made to bear the brunt of the same without first demonstrating any act or omission on their part that coerced the deceased to such an extent that committing suicide was the only way out.” It described the prosecution as “an unfortunate instance of a father, grieving the bereavement of his daughter, searching for some semblance of reason as to why the deceased took such a drastic step.”

Placing reliance on State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the Court held that sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5) and (7) of paragraph 102 are applicable to the facts of this case. It also held that the allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt “have been made not with a bona fide intent as they are vague and general in nature.”

The Court also relied on CBI v A Ravishankar Prasad, with respect to the High Court's inherent powers and observed that while such powers should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution, “no person should be compelled to face criminal prosecution if the basic ingredients of the alleged offence against him are totally absent.”

In the light of aforesaid, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the proceedings initiated against the husband (petitioner).

“In view of the aforementioned discussion and keeping the judicial dicta of this Court in mind, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 of the High Court is set aside and consequently, FIR No.212/2023 dated 30.06.2023 registered with Satara Police Station, District Aurangabad Town and consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed.”

Appearances:

For Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Chugh, Adv.; Mr. Jai Allagh, Adv.; Mr. Mayank Arora, Adv.; Mr. Maanish Mohan Chaudhary, Adv.; Mr. Pushp Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Ekam Bath, Adv.; Mr. Saksham Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Sarthak Mittal, Adv.; Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Jain, AOR

For Respondents: Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Shrirang B Varma, Adv.; Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR; Mr. Rishabh Singh, Adv.