Back
2003 (3) Crimes
Delhi High Court
J.D. Kapoor, J.
Savitri Devi —Petitioner
versus
Ramesh Chand & Ors. —Respondents
Crl. Revision No. 462 of 2002
Decided on 19-5-2003
that had marriage taken place with her sister, more dowry would have been received, would not make out a case of either ‘cruelty’ or ‘harass-ment’ as contemplated by the provisions of Section 498A IPC — Revision against discharge of such relatives of husband was without merit.
Held: Ingredients of ‘cruelty’ as contemplated under Section 498A are
of much higher and sterner degree than the ordinary concept of cruelty applicable and available for the purposes of dissolution of marriage i.e. Divorce. In constituting ‘cruelty’ con-templated by Section 498A, IPC the acts or conduct should be either such that may cause danger to life, limb or health or cause ‘grave’ injury or of such a degree that may drive a woman to commit suicide. Not only that such acts or conduct should be “wilful” i.e. intentional. So to invoke provisions of Section 498A, IPC the tests are of stringent nature and intention is the most essential factor. The only test is that acts or conduct of guilty party should have the sting or effect of causing grave injury to the woman or are likely to cause danger of life, limb or physical or mental health. Further conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide is of much graver nature than that causing grave injury or endangering life, limb or physical or mental health. It involves series of systematic, persistent and wilful acts perpetrated with a view to make the life of the woman so burden-some or insupportable that she may be driven to commit suicide because of having been fed up with marital life. (Para 16)
Further Held: The word ‘harass-ment’ in ordinary sense means to torment a person subjecting him or her through constant interference or intimidation. If such tormentation is done with a view to ‘coerce’ any person and in this case, the wife to do any unlawful act and in this case to meet the unlawful demand of property or valuable security, it amounts to “harassment” as contemplated by Section 498-A. Word ‘Coercion’ means persuading or compelling a person to do something by using force or threats. Thus to constitute “harassment” follo-wing ingredients are essential:
(i) Woman should be tormented i.e. tortured either physically or mentally through constant interference or intimidation;
(ii) Such act should be with a view to persuade or compel her to do something which she is legally or otherwise not expected to do by using force or threats;
(iii) Intention to subject the woman should be to compel or force her or her relatives to fulfil unlawful demands for any property or valuable security. (Para 18)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Marital cruelty — Implementation of law has been in bad taste — Provisions have tendency to destroy whole social fabric & remedy has proven worse than disease — Offence should be made liable if no grave physical injury was inflicted & compoundable — Investigation should be by police officer of rank of ACP when offence is u/s 498A & by DCP when offence is u/s 304B IPC. (Paras 29 to 30)
Result: Revision dismissed.
Judgment
J.D. Kapoor, J.—Though State has the locus standi to prefer such petitions, since petitioner is the wife and on her complaint case was registered and charge-sheet was filed, and has grievance against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Metropolitan Magistrate this is being entertained.
2. Vide impugned order charge for the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC for misappropriation of dowry articles and istridhan was framed against her husband only and her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law (wife of one of the brothers of her husband) and her unmarried sister-in-law were discharged and charge for the offence under Section 498A, IPC i.e. harassment of the wife by the husband and his relatives for inadequate dowry or non-fulfilment of demands of dowry was framed against the husband and father-in-law alone. According to the petitioner/wife, every member of the family though the elder brother of the husband died during the proceedings should have been subjected to trial for both the offences viz offence under Section 498A, IPC as well as 406, IPC.
3. The allegations in brief are that after marriage her in-laws specially her father-in-law and her husband and the brother-in-law did not like the dowry articles and expressed their unhappi-ness that they were not given Hero Honda and cash of Rs. 50,000/. The wife of elder brother of her husband Ms. Mukesh and the sister of her husband did not like the clothes given for them and Ms. Mukesh represented that if Sanjay had married her younger sister then he would have got more dowry. The main allegations of harassment were against the husband and father-
in-law. There were no allegations of demand of dowry against other relatives.
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that non-acceptance of the gifts by respondents and others tantamount to harassment and cruelty as defined in Section 498A IPC.
5. Section 498A IPC provides as under :
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:—
Whoever, being the husband or the relative or 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 wilful 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 her such demand.”
6. A bare perusal shows that the word ‘cruelty’ encompasses any of the following elements:
(i) any ‘wilful’ conduct 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.
7. So far as criminality attached to word ‘harassment’ is concerned,
it is independent, of ‘cruelty’ and is punishable in the following circums-tances—
(a) Where the harassment of the woman 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
(b) Where the harassment is on account of failure by her or any persons related to her to meet such demand.
8. It is apparent, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability for the purposes of Section 498-A. There is no problem where there is physical violence and infliction of injury which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. In such cases, facts will speak for themselves. We have adopted this definiti
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
