SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Varala Bharath Kumar and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2017 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 5458 of 2016)
Decided On : 05-09-2017
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A, and 405 and 406 – Husband allegedly not cohabiting after marriage and wife going back to parental house – Husband going abroad for work – Wife instituting case u/s 498A and 406 – Held, ingredients of sections 498A and 405 not made out – High Court ought to exercise power u/d 482 CrPC. (Para 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Criminal case was instituted against appellants u/s 498A, 405 and 406 IPC.
The High Court dismissed application filed by appellants u/s 482 CrPC and instead directed appellant no.1 to file an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to recall NBW issued against him and directed appellant no.2 to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking to dispense with his presence before the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
Ingredients of sections 498A or 406 not made out.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Leave granted.
2. The impugned order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3302 of 2016, as well as, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants in C.C. No. 442 of 2015 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, arising out of Crime No. 151 of 2015 of Saroornagar Women Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, are called in question.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
The marriage between the first appellant and the second respondent (complainant) was solemnized at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and rituals. They lived together for about 20 days in matrimonial house. Thereafter, the first appellant left India and went to Australia, where he is working as an engineer. It is alleged by the second respondent, that during her stay at the matrimonial house for the period of afore-mentioned 20 days, the first appellant did not come close to the complainant and he was not even willing to talk freely with the complainant, despite her sincere efforts to come close to her husband. It is also alleged, that the first appellant never behaved as a dutiful husband and used to evade the complainant whenever she approached to him; he maintained the distance even during nights; when asked, the first appellant informed the complainant that he was suffering from viral fever; the first appellant took treatment in the hospital for two-three days, and even after discharge from the hospital, he did not come closer to the complainant; the first appellant postponed the nuptial night ceremony and he was not interested in co-habitation. Even after the first appellant left for Australia, the family members of the first appellant including the second appellant were not talking to the complainant. The complainant left for her parents’ house and started residing there. It is further alleged, that the parents of the complainant had spent about rupees fifteen lakhs for the marriage ceremony and rupees twenty lakhs for the gold ornaments. On these, among other grounds, complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent.
4. The police after registering the crime for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code investigated and filed the charge sheet, which culminated in CC No. 442 of 2015, pending on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar.
5. The appellants herein approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected the prayer of the appellants to quash the proceedings initiated against them, and instead directed appellant no.1 to file an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to recall NBW issued against him and directed appellant no.2 to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking to dispense with his presence before the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.
6. Respondent No.2, though served, has chosen to remain absent. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties who are present and perused the record. Having carefully perused the first information report, as well as, the contents of the charge sheet, we find that the ingredients of Sections 498A and 406, IPC are not forthcoming. The entire story narrated by the complainant does not attract the afore-mentioned provisions, as there has not been any dowry demand of the appellants or harassment to the second respondent. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the provisions of Sections 498A, 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which read thus:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husba
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.