IMPORTANT POINT
Reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498A, IPC is limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 498A and 406-FIR lodged by complainant against her husband and appellant his foster sister alleging that harassment was meted out to her on account of dowry demands-Petition thereagainst filed by appellant under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR for offences under Section 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Plea that in order to be covered under Section 498A, IPC one has to be a ‘relative’ of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption, and since appellant was not in any manner a ‘relative’ as referred to in Section 498A, IPC there was no question of any allegation against her in respect of the ill-treatment of complainant-Held reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498A, IPC is limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage-Hence held that FIR insofar as it concerned Section 498A, IPC, would be of no consequence and appellant shall not be tried for the offence under Section 498A, IPC- In so far as Section 406,IPC was concerned held that whatever the form in which the allegations under Section 406, IPC are made, the fact of the matter was that there was an FIR and the Court concerned had taken cognizance thereof- Under these circumstances, direction given that appellant would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity- Appeals disposed off. (Paras 7 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
       An FIR was lodged by complainant herein in the instant case against her husband and appellant his foster sister alleging that harassment was meted out to her on account of dowry demands. Petition thereagainst was filed by appellant under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIR for offences under Section 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code. Said petition was Dismissed by High Court.
       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Held reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498A, IPC is limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.Hence held that FIR insofar as it concerned Section 498A, IPC, would be of no consequence and appellant shall not be tried for the offence under Section 498A, IPC. In so far as Section 406,IPC was concerned held that Whatever the form in which the allegations under Section 406, IPC are made, the fact of the matter was that there was an FIR and the Court concerned had taken cognizance thereof. Under these circumstances, direction was given that appellant would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity. Appeals were disposed of.
       Result : Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed by her was dismissed. The said petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR No. 138/08 dated 07.08.2008 for offences under Section 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code in the Chitranjan Park Police Station.

3.This FIR was lodged by one Gunjan Sujanani, wife of one Rohit Sujanani. It is a long document wherein the complainant Gunjan Sujanani stated about her marriage with Rohit on 08.07.2003 and he being a resident of Nigeria. It was claimed that before the marriage, Rohit had introduced Gunjan to one Mr. Sham and Mrs. Lavina Daswani as his foster parents and also said that he had two foster sisters, namely, Vijeta Daswani (Vijeta Gajra-the appellant herein) who is a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the other being one Ms. Ritika Daswani, who resided with her mother in London. There are allegations made about the demand of dowry against the husband as also Mrs. Lavina Daswani. The demand included diamond neckless for Vijeta Daswani/Gajra. There was reference to subsequent behaviour of troubling the complainant on account of the dowry demands. The First Information Report also made some allegations regarding the relations of her husband Rohit Sujanani with Mrs. Lavina Daswani and Vijeta Daswani/Gajra, the present appellant. It was then contended that in December, 2003, when the complainant had gone to Sierra Leone, Vijeta Dasawani/Gajra took away her diamond encrusted heavy gold pendant and chain and earring set on the pretext that she wanted to wear them once and she would keep them at a safe place in her father’s house. The complainant also stated that she did not return these ornaments. Further, it was stated that in May, 2004, Mr. Rohit Sujanani and Mrs. Lavina Daswani insisted that the complainant should keep her jewellery in London and claimed that she was slapped by her husband on her refusal. It was further claimed that in November, 2004, the present appellant, Vijeta Gajra got married during which the complainant had to beg for her ornaments for attending the marriage. There was a reference in the FIR to the misbehaviour on the part of Mrs. Lavina Daswani towards her and again the name of the present appellant figured therein. At this time, the complainant claimed that she was pregnant for the first time and yet she was given physical and mental ill treatment because of which she had a mis-carriage. There is a reference to the sexual behaviour of her husband with reference to a pornographic website. It was claimed that the complainant delivered a baby on 08.03.2007. Then there is reference to the appellant visiting and staying with the complainant’s parents for three days and the allegation that her husband was having sexual relations with Vijeta Gajra, the appellant herein and Mrs.Lavina Daswani. There was a reference that during her stay the appellant was wearing the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which she had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone.

4.In the last part of this lengthy FIR, there was a reference to the demand of two crores of rupees having been made by Vijeta and her mother over the phone to the complainant as a cost of peace and marital happiness. There was a reference to a telephonic conversation with Mrs. Lavina Daswani in this regard. There was a further reference to an ugly scene on account of arguments. However, there was also a reference to the presence of the brother of the complainant on account of which further ugly scenes were avoided. It was complained that, thereafter, the complainant and her parents tried to contact Rohit Sujanani and the Daswanis who were avoiding them and not returning jewellery which was with Vijeta Gajra, Lavina Daswani and Rohit Sujanani.

5.This complaint dated 15.04.2008 seems to have been registered as an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 548

2010 (5) Supreme 382SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.Vijeta Gajra — AppellantversusState of NCT of Delhi — RespondentCriminal Appeal Nos. 1182-1184 of 2010(Arising out of SLP (Crl) 6091-6093 of 2009)Decided on : 8-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT Reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498A, IPC is limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage

Cases Referred (2)

2010 (5) Supreme 382
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Vijeta Gajra — Appellant
versus
State of NCT of Delhi — Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1182-1184 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) 6091-6093 of 2009)
Decided on : 8-07-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498A, IPC is limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage