JUDGMENT Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. State in this appeal has challenged the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned trial Court in criminal case No. 54/2/1999 decided on 12.11.2002. 3. PW2 Smt. Veena Devi was married to Ajinder Singh. Respondent Prabhu Ram and Dropadi are the parents-in-law of the complainant whereas respondent Joginder Singh is the brother in-law. The complainant was married to respondent No. 1 somewhere in the year 1996. He was posted at Shimla. It is alleged that after marriage, respondents started harassing her as they were expecting Rs.50,000/- in cash as dowry which could not be given by her father. Later, her father is alleged to have raised the loan and paid it to the respondents but even by this, respondents were not satisfied. In the month of September, 1998, complainant fell ill. She requested the respondents to provide some treatment but in turn, she was given beatings on account of this, she had to leave the matrimonial house and take refuge in the house of her parents. Thereafter she made a complaint to the S.D.M., the Deputy Commissioner concerned and reported the matter to the Police which culminated into the present FIR. 4. Police after registration of the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completing the investigation, challan was presented in the court for the trial of the respondents. 5. Respondents were charge sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the respondent was that they never demanded any money or anything in dowry. It is stated that the complainant wanted to stay at Shimla with her husband but he was not in a position to keep her with him. Therefore, a false case was foisted upon them. 7. The learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. Thus the respondents were acquitted for want of requisite evidence to prove the offence. 8. Before touching the merits of the case, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. Therefore, a false case was foisted upon them. 7. The learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. Thus the respondents were acquitted for want of requisite evidence to prove the offence. 8. Before touching the merits of the case, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. It reads as under:- “498-A. 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-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.] (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 9. “Cruelty” has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code but the above explanations added to the Section spells out the ingredients of the offence of “cruelty” which are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned can be classified as follows: (i) any ‘wilful’ misconduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or (ii) any ‘wilful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii) any ‘wilful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman; and 10. In order to constitute “cruelty” under clause (b), there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 11. 11. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000 SC 3559 the apex Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet in another case Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078, the Supreme Court held that “cruelty” has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498-A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another. 12. Taking note of the above judgments amongst others Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam 2009 (2) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1036 observed that “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is to be established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as “cruelty”. 13. Against the above settled principle of law I proceed to examine the statements of the witnesses to find out whether the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court is legally and factually sustainable. 14. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, complainant was examined as PW2 in this case. According to her, immediately after 15 days of her marriage with respondent Ajinder Singh, respondents started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry and raised demand of Rs.50,000/- which was met out by her by raising loan. She further stated that whatever jewellery was provided to her at the time of marriage, was also kept by the respondents. According to her, immediately after 15 days of her marriage with respondent Ajinder Singh, respondents started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry and raised demand of Rs.50,000/- which was met out by her by raising loan. She further stated that whatever jewellery was provided to her at the time of marriage, was also kept by the respondents. When she fell ill in the year 1998, she asked her husband to get her treated but he refused on the ground that her father had not paid him the money for her treatment. Even during the illness, she had been made to work hard. Thus, she was forced to join the company of her parents and the matter was reported to the Panchayat. She is stated to have made the complaint to the S.D.M. also. But when confronted with the complaint, she was unable to state as to what was the complaint. Contrary to her examination-in-chief, she stated in cross-examination that she was also got treated by her husband in the Hospital at Shimla. She was also not able to state when her father had made the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the respondents. She further stated that when she went to the house of her parents, her husband was not there but was at Shimla. She also stated that when she went to the house of her parents, she made a false excuse that she was going to fetch the grass. She was also confronted with the application Mark-Y wherein it was written that she was never beaten up by her husband. She categorically stated that she wanted to live with her husband at Shimla and that is why she made her husband as accused in this case. She had gone to the extent of saying that she was not interested in prosecution of the case, if her husband keeps her with him at Shimla. 15. PW3 Sheesh Ram instead of supporting the case of the prosecution, without mincing any word, supported the case of the respondents. He admitted that the complainant was treated well in the house of the respondents. 16. Although PW5 Bimla Devi, mother of the complainant stated that her husband had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as demanded by respondents, but PW6 Govind Ram, her husband categorically stated that he did not pay aforesaid amount either to his daughter or to the respondents. He admitted that the complainant was treated well in the house of the respondents. 16. Although PW5 Bimla Devi, mother of the complainant stated that her husband had paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as demanded by respondents, but PW6 Govind Ram, her husband categorically stated that he did not pay aforesaid amount either to his daughter or to the respondents. He even stated that he did not know why the case was framed against the respondents. He further stated that he never saw respondents giving beatings to his daughter. According to him, she used to feel scared of them, reason for that is not mentioned. When complainant was reexamined on 22.3.2002 she admitted that she had left the matrimonial house after taking permission of her father-in-law. She also stated that she was never beaten up by her husband and at the tail-end of her examination; she admitted that she was staying in the house of her parents of her own free will. 17. Against the above background, when the statements of the prosecution witnesses are tested in the light of the above settled principles of law, I do not find it a case of “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court had rightly picked-up the circumstances put forth, discussed the evidence and after analyzing, came to the right conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.