IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Sajana P.Sabu, D/o.Sabu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 3782 of 2023
Decided on : 21-06-2024
Abuse of Process - Section 498A of the IPC - The court quashed further proceedings in a criminal case against the petitioner, a third party accused of maintaining an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant, on the grounds that the offense under Section 498A of the IPC applies only to the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, and the petitioner does not fall within this definition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a third party, was accused of maintaining an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant, leading to the registration of a crime under Section 498A of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offense under Section 498A of the IPC applies only to the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, and the petitioner, being a third party, does not fall within this definition. Therefore, the registration of the crime against the petitioner was deemed an abuse of the process of the court and was quashed.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether the petitioner, as a third party accused of maintaining an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant, could be held liable under Section 498A of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 498A of the IPC and concluded that the offense would attract only against the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, and the petitioner did not fall within this definition.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed, and all further proceedings in the registered crime against the petitioner were quashed, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to carry out investigation as against the other accused, as per law.
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.371/2023 of Ambalappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha, as against the petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in the above crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. I have scrutinized the relevant documents.
3. The petitioner herein, is a third party, who alleged to have maintained some illicit relationship with the husband of the de facto complainant. Acting on the statement given by the de facto complainant, crime was registered, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter), against accused Nos.1 and 2. The 1st accused in the above crime is the husband of the de facto complainant and the 2nd accused is the petitioner herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner zealously pointed out that, as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, she is a third party and she would not come under the purview of the term 'relative' of the husband, mentioned under Section 498A of the IPC and therefore, registration of FIR and investigation moved against the petitioner, who is a third party, is an abuse of the process of court. In such view of the matter, FIR as against the petitioner, is liable to be quashed at the threshold.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor also conceded the fact that, going by the penal provision of Section 498A, the offence would attract only when husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjecting such woman to cruelty and nobody else.
6. While addressing the contention raised by the petitioner, reference to Section 498A of the IPC, is necessary and the same reads as under:
(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 such demand.
7. A plain reading of Section 498A of the IPC would make it clear that the offence would attract only against husband or the relative of the husband of a woman. The word ‘relative’ means a person connected by blood or marriage. If at all there is allegation that the husband has been maintaining an illicit relationship with a lady, that lady would not come with the definition of ‘relative’ contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the crime registered as against the petitioner herein is an abuse of process of court, thus found to be unsustainable.
8. In view of the matter, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.371/2023 of Ambalappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha, registered against the petitioner herein, stand quashed, with liberty to the Investigating Officer to carry out investigation as against the other accused, as per law.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense under Section 498A of the IPC applies only to the husband or relative of the husband of a woman, and individuals outside this d....
The term 'relative' under Section 498A of IPC includes spouses of siblings residing at the matrimonial home, and body shaming does not constitute cruelty unless it poses a serious threat to the woman....
The wife of a brother is considered a 'relative' under Section 498A of the IPC, and allegations of body shaming do not constitute cruelty as defined by law.
A valid marital relationship is essential to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Only individuals defined as 'relatives' under Section 498A IPC can be charged; a non-relative cannot be held liable for offences under this section.
Proceedings against relatives in dowry cases must allege specific conduct; general allegations fail to establish a prima facie case.
In matrimonial disputes, vague allegations against relatives cannot sustain criminal charges; specific evidence is required to proceed.
The prosecution for an offence under Section 377 IPC is not maintainable after it was struck down by the Supreme Court. The registration of an FIR for the offence under Section 498-A IPC is valid eve....
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.