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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Akhtar Malik And Another - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4416 of 2015; Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15604 of 2015
Decided on : 30-05-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sunil Sharma, Adv., Raghuvinder Varma, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the term 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, limited to blood relations or relatives by marriage of the husband.

Headnote:

498A - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A/406/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and emphasized that it should be given a strict interpretation, limited to blood relations or relatives by marriage of the husband. The court referred to various verdicts and legal provisions to establish that the petitioners, being the maternal uncles of the sister-in-law of the complainant's husband, did not fall within the definition of 'relative of the husband' and thus, quashed the FIR against them.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged harassment by her in-laws with dowry demands and mistreatment after the birth of her child. She accused the petitioners of threatening her and instigating her in-laws against her. The charge sheet contended that all accused persons, including the petitioners, committed offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, being the maternal uncles of the sister-in-law of the complainant's husband, did not fall within the definition of 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, it quashed the FIR against them but allowed prosecution for any other offence that may be constituted against them.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as maternal uncles of the sister-in-law of the complainant's husband, could be prosecuted under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied a strict interpretation of the term 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on various legal provisions and precedents, and concluded that the petitioners did not fall within this definition.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the petitioners but allowed prosecution for any other offence that may be constituted against them. It also directed the trial against the remaining accused persons to proceed expeditiously in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

The petitioners i.e. Akhtar Malik s/o Sh. Hakimuddin and Hanif Malik s/o Sh. Hakimuddin, vide the present petition seek quashing of the FIR No.461/2013 dated 02.07.2013, PS Govindpuri under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the resultant charge sheet submitting to the effect that they have been arrayed as the accused persons in column no.11 without their arrest and that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2015 has taken cognizance and issued summons to them, but they are distant relatives of the husband of the respondent no.2, Ms.Ruby w/o Sh. Saleem Malik, in as much as they, the petitioners are the maternal uncles of the Jethani i.e. the wife of the elder brother of the husband of the complainant/ respondent no.2 and that thus, the allegations levelled against them are far fetched and that they do not fall within the ambit of the term 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and that the summoning order is banned in law.

2. The FIR registered in the instant case was lodged on 02.07.2013 at 7.15 PM on the complaint made by the respondent no.2 i.e. the complainant, the wife of Sh. Saleem, s/o Sh. Kamruddin, r/o H.No. T.A. 308, Gali No.5, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, in which the complainant/ respondent no.2 alleged that she had been harassed by her in-laws with dowry demands and for having not fulfilled the demands of her in-laws of a car by her family members. As per the FIR, initially the behavior of her relatives was quite alright but after she gave birth to a son on 18.06.2005, her in-laws i.e. her parents-inlaw, her husband and other family members started compelling her in the hospital to give her son in adoption to her sister-in-law (Nanad) named Smt. Bano, but when she, the complainant refused to do so, her husband slapped her and her parents-in-law, sisters-in-law (two Jethanis and Nanad) abused her i.e. the complainant, as a consequence of which there was a lot of noise and on hearing the noise, the nurse came and sent all those persons out of the room, whereafter, her husband and in-laws became further adverse to her and did not look after her nor her child even after her discharge from the hospital and her husband and her in-laws told her that they would never let her live with peace in the house and thereafter, her sister-in-law (Nanad) namely Bano caught hold of her hair and slapped her and told her that she would now live in the house as a maid servant and thereafter they harassed her even more and there were demands of dowry made and her husband, her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law (Jeth), sisters-in-law (Jethanis & Nanad) stated that her father had not given a car in the marriage and thus, he would have to give a car in the 'Chochak' of the child, otherwise, her family would have to bear the consequences and thereupon, she came back to her parental home but did not tell anything to her father in view of his condition but when she returned to her matrimonial home, her father had given her articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- but despite the same, her in-laws' were not happy and her parents-in-law, her brothers-in-law (Jeths), sisters-in-law (Jethanis & Nanad) regularly beat her with fist blows and kicks for having not brought sufficient dowry and for having not brought a car.

3. Inter alia through the FIR, the complainant further alleged that her sister-in-law (Jethani) Farzana threatened her every-time about her maternal uncles (i.e. Farzana's maternal uncles) namely Akhtar and Hanif (i.e. the petitioners herein) that the complainant did not know that they were very bad persons (badmash) and that they would make the life of her father miserable and would get him involved in a false case. It was further stated through the said FIR by the complainant that one day, her sister-in-law (Jethani) Farzana called these two persons (i.e. the petitioners herein) to her in-laws' house and instigated them against the complainant and t

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top