The court upheld that confinement and abuse constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, regardless of dowry demands, affirming the validity of the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by JM, 1st Class, Pakur in PCR Case No.45 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the prima facie the commission of the offence under section 498A of IPC was found against the petitioner and cognizance of offence has been taken and directed for issuance of summon to the petitioner. The petitioner further prays for quashing of entire criminal proceeding against him arising out of PCR No.45 of 2014 pending in the court of JM, 1st, Class, Pakur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is thoroughly innocent and has committed no offence at all. The complainant is habitual to lodge false case against the petitioner and on earlier occasion, she has also lodged a case against the petitioner in which the present petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated 27.09.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.109 of 2008 under section 341, 323, 307, 498 and 315 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 also filed a maintenance case, which was compromised but the complainant is not desire to live with the petitioner and she has been living separately for more than 21 years of marriage. Admittedly, the complaint petition does not disclose any demand of additional dowry by the petitioner or by any other family members and the allegations also do not fall within explanation of cruelty as described in section 498A of IPC. Therefore, all the proceedings including the summoning order against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance upon the judgments of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083] and Digambar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 ].

3. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that for every cause of action, a distinct offence is made out and there is no bar for institution of criminal cases twice for the similar offences. Here in the present complaint, there is totally different cause of action accrued for the complainant and as per sworn affirmation of the complainant, there is direct allegation against the petitioner that in the maintenance case lodged by the complainant, the petitioner entered into compromise and the case was disposed of accordingly. After compromise in the said maintenance case, on 15.01.2014 the complainant was brought to her matrimonial home by the petitioner where she was badly abused at the hand of the petitioner and his mother and also confined her in a room along with her daughter over the night without providing food, drink, bed and other necessities and thereafter, the petitioner went in the room of his second wife. In the next day morning, the complainant was again abused in filthy language and driven away from the matrimonial home.

In the above factual backgrounds, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. appearing for the State that physical assault itself is not sufficient to attract the provision 498A of IPC rather the mental trauma under which the complainant was put by her husband along with her minor daughter shows that she was subjected to cruelty and such conduct of the petitioner was likely to affect the life and limb of the complainant and her daughter and also likely to drive her to commit suicide. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner as well as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for any interference and this petition is fit to be dismissed.

4. For better appreciation of this case, provision of section 498A of IPC is attracted as under:-

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—

Whoever,