IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Nimija - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondent
CRL.MC NO.9443 OF 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Petition filed to quash Final Report in a case alleging cruelty under Section 498A of IPC - The court held that the term 'relative' includes spouses of siblings residing at the matrimonial home, thus the petitioner falls under the purview of Section 498A. (Paras 10, 14)
(B) Cruelty - Definition - The court clarified that mere body shaming or questioning educational qualifications does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A unless it is likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the wife of the elder brother of the first accused, challenged the applicability of Section 498A of IPC against her, arguing that she does not fall under the definition of 'relative'.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is indeed a relative under Section 498A, and the allegations of body shaming do not meet the threshold for cruelty as defined in the IPC.
Issues: The main issues were the definition of 'relative' under Section 498A and whether the allegations constituted cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the term 'relative' includes spouses of siblings residing at the matrimonial home, and clarified the definition of cruelty under Section 498A.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) to quash Annexure 1 Final Report in C.C.No.618/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba, arose out of Crime No.218/2022 of the Kuthuparamba police station, Kannur, and all further proceedings thereof. The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. In a nutshell, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) by the accused and the foundation for the said offence stems from the plank of marriage of the 1st accused and the de facto complainant on 8.4.2019. The specific allegation is that after the marriage, while the de facto complainant was staying at the matrimonial home, she was subjected to persecution by the 1st accused, who is her husband, the 2nd accused, father-in-law of the de facto complainant and the 3rd accused, who is the wife of the elder brother of the 1st accused.
4. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out two legal aspects. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the 3rd accused/the petitioner herein is the wife of the elder brother of the 1st accused, she would not come under the purview of the term 'relative' dealt under Section 498A of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the term 'relative' is not defined in the IPC or under Section 498A of the IPC, explanation to Section 176 of the Cr.P.C., the expression 'relative' means parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse and nobody else. The learned counsel further argued that, in the pari materia provision viz., Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, 'the BNSS' hereinafter) also, the same definition is engrafted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 2(39) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sasnhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNS hereinafter), it has been provided that, words and expressions used but not defined in Sanhita, but defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the BNSS, 2023 shall have the meanings respectively assgined to them in that Act and Sanhita. Therefore, explanation appended to Section 176 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 196 of the BNSS to be read to understand the word 'relative' mentioned in Section 498A of the IPC. The learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in U.Suvetha v. State & Ors. reported in [(2009) 6 SCC 757], where the Apex Court considered the expression relative of a husband of the woman occurring in Section 498A of the IPC, while dealing with the case of a concubine. After elaborately considering the other earlier decisions, the Apex Court held that the status of relative must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption and if no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. In the said decision, the Apex Court dealt with the term 'relative' in paragraph No.12 as under:
The word `relative' has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar
Advanced Law Lexicon - Volume 4, 3rd Edition as under :-
"Relative, "RELATIVE" includes any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. [Lunacy Act].
The
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.
Only individuals defined as 'relatives' under Section 498A IPC can be charged; a non-relative cannot be held liable for offences under this section.
The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in Section 498A IPC cases to prevent misuse and quashed proceedings lacking prima facie evidence.
The court emphasized the principles of quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and cited relevant case laws to support its decision to quash the proceedings in the present case.
The judgment established the importance of specific allegations and cautioned against implicating relatives of the husband without prima facie evidence in cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal....
The court established that specific allegations are necessary to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC, preventing misuse of the provision in matrimonial disputes.
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.