Psychiatric Treatment for Pre-Existing Illness Cannot Be Construed as Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC : Kerala High Court Criminal Proceedings Quashed

“Vague Allegations of Mental Cruelty and Unproven Claims of Gold Misappropriation Not Sufficient to Frame Charges Under IPC”- In a judgment reinforcing the legal requirement for specificity and substance in criminal allegations, the Kerala High Court on 10 June 2025, in Gishnu & Others v. State of Kerala & Another [Crl.MC No. 2756 of 2025], quashed proceedings against a husband and his relatives who were accused under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly subjecting the complainant-wife to matrimonial cruelty and misappropriating her gold ornaments.

Justice G. Girish, exercising the Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that the allegations lacked material particulars and did not disclose any prima facie case warranting prosecution.

“The sweeping and superficial statements given by the de facto complainant do not constitute the offence of mental cruelty envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” the Court concluded.

Accusations of Cruelty Based on Appearance and Medical Treatment Found Legally Unfounded

The de facto complainant had alleged that ever since her marriage in February 2019, she was mentally harassed by the husband (first petitioner) and in-laws. The alleged acts included being called unattractive, being told the husband could have found a better spouse, and being forced to undergo psychiatric treatment after being found playing with local children.

The Court, however, found the accusations unconvincing in the face of documentary evidence submitted by the petitioners.

“The act of the petitioners getting the de facto complainant treated for her mental illness cannot be termed as a cruelty done upon her,” the Court held after perusing Annexures A3 to A5 — medical records which showed that the complainant had a history of mental illness predating the marriage, including low stress tolerance, emotional dysregulation, and perceptual abnormalities.

“The allegation of insult meted out to the de facto complainant... is too superficial and vague to amount to the mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC,” the Court observed

No Details to Support Criminal Misappropriation of Gold — Offence Under Section 406 IPC Not Made Out

The complainant had further alleged that the accused failed to return 63 sovereigns of gold given to her at the time of marriage. However, the Court noted a complete lack of details — no information was provided on the nature of the ornaments, date of entrustment, or the circumstances of alleged misappropriation.

“The de facto complainant has not at all stated about the specifications of the gold ornaments allegedly taken away... nor the point of time when they were misappropriated,” Justice Girish stated.

The Court held that such generalised accusations failed to invoke the essential elements of Section 406 IPC, which requires clear allegations of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.

FIR Found to Be a Reaction to Divorce Notice — Timing Undermines Credibility

Another significant factor that weighed with the Court was the timing of the FIR. The first petitioner had issued a legal notice for dissolution of marriage on 27 March 2024. The complaint followed soon after on 17 April 2024, which the Court viewed with caution.

“The present complaint appears to have been filed as an act of reprisal to the legal notice issued by the first petitioner,” the Court remarked.

This sequence of events suggested that the FIR may have been driven more by matrimonial discord than genuine criminal grievance.

Legal Process Cannot Be Triggered on Vague and Unsupported Allegations

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed C.C. No. 740/2024, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Koyilandy, arising from Crime No. 332/2024 registered by Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode.

“It would be totally unsafe and improper to come to a finding that the vague and superficial statements given by the de facto complainant constitute the offences alleged,” the Court concluded.

The judgment is a reminder that criminal proceedings, especially in matrimonial contexts, must be rooted in specific, provable allegations, and not in vague discontent or retaliatory motivations.

Date of Decision: 10 June 2025