SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 855

2010 (6) Supreme 565
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
Sunita Jha — Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2010
(@ Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No.4758 of 2009)
Decided on : 13-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The status of relative could be conferred only either by blood connection or marriage or adoption.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – The fact of another woman living with husband of the complainant wife would not constitute ‘cruelty’ in terms of section 498A. (Para 8)

        (2009) 6 SCC 757 – Relied upon

        (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – A girl friend or even a concubine would not be a “relative” – This status could only be conferred either by blood connection or marriage or adoption. (Paras 9)

        (2009) 6 SCC 757 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        1. One Asha Rani Pal, the Respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against her husband, Mukund Chandra Pandit, and the Appellant being under Section 498A IPC. Cognizance was taken against the Appellant and process was issued.

        2. The Appellant filed an application for discharge. It was contended that the Appellant could not be made an accused under Section 498A IPC since she was not a relative of Mukund Chandra Pandit and that the allegations made against her did not make out a case of cruelty under the aforesaid Section.

        3. The Appellant’s application for discharge was rejected.

        4. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision on the ground that since the appellant was living with the accused husband of the complainant, she must be deemed to have become his family member for the purpose of Section 498A IPC.

       Finding of the Court:

        The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Revision No.410 of 2007 dismissing the same and affirming the order of the Trial Court rejecting the prayer of the Appellant for being discharged from the case.

3. One Asha Rani Pal, the Respondent No.2 herein, filed a complaint case against her husband, Mukund Chandra Pandit, and the Appellant herein, being Complaint Case No.404 of 2005, before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, Jharkhand, under Section 498A IPC. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 6th February, 2006, took cognizance against the Appellant and other accused and issued process for the accused to appear before him on 5th April, 2006. Pursuant to the said order, the Appellant appeared before the learned Magistrate on 10th July, 2006, when the prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW.1 Kanhai Pal, father of the Respondent No.2 and PW.2 Mukti Pal. No further evidence was led by the complainant/Respondent No.2 and on 13th November, 2006, the learned Magistrate closed the pre-charge evidence and posted the case for arguments on framing of charge.

4. On 9th March, 2007, the Appellant filed an application for discharge, inter alia, on the ground that the complainant had not been examined as a witness in the case. During the arguments on the said application, it was contended that the Appellant could not be made an accused under Section 498A IPC since she was not a relative of Mukund Chandra Pandit and that the allegations made against her did not make out a case of cruelty under the aforesaid Section. However, by his order dated 9th March, 2007, the learned Magistrate rejected the Appellant’s application for discharge on the ground that there was prima facie evidence for framing of charge against the accused, including the Appellant, under Section 498A IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant moved the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by way of Criminal Revision No.410 of 2007. As indicated hereinabove, a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 29th April, 2009, dismissed the Revision Application on the ground that since the Appellant was living with the accused husband of the complainant, she must be deemed to have become a family member of Mukund Chandra Pandit for the purpose of Section 498A IPC.

6. The case of the Appellant before us is that the High Court erred in law in holding that the Appellant became a member of the family of Mukund Chandra Pandit merely because she was living with him in his house allegedly as his wife. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, contended that Section 498A IPC was very clear as to who could be charged under the said Section. For the sake of convenience, the said Section is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“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 purpose 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.”

7. It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions that it is either the husband or the relative of a husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty, who could be charged under the said Section. Such provision could not apply to a person who was not a relation of the








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top