IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Malay Bhowmik – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6 of 2015
Decided On : 13.7.2014
Cruelty - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Section 498A IPC - [Section 498A IPC] - The court discussed the allegations of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and referred to various judgments to interpret the legal provisions and their application in the case. The court emphasized that for an act to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, it must be of such a nature as to cause danger to the life, limb, or health of the woman, whether physical or mental. The court concluded that the acts alleged in the complaint, even if true, did not amount to an offense under Section 498A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed against the order dismissing the petitioner-accused's plea alleging no material to frame a charge under section 498A IPC. The complaint alleged mistreatment and cruelty by the accused persons towards the complainant-wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations and referred to various judgments to interpret the legal provisions of Section 498A IPC. It concluded that the acts alleged, even if true, did not constitute an offense under Section 498A IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the complaint amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for an act to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, it must be of such a nature as to cause danger to the life, limb, or health of the woman, whether physical or mental.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and it was held that even if the complaint was taken to be wholly true, no offense under section 498A IPC was made out, and the proceedings before the Trial Court were quashed.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) is directed against the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura whereby, he dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-accused in which it was alleged that there was no material to frame charge against the petitioner under section 498A IPC.
2. The case against the petitioners is based on the written complaint made by the complainant to the Officer-in-Charge, Women Police Station, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura on 17.01.2014.
3. In the complaint, five persons was shown as accused and the complaint reads as follows:-
“Sir,
With due respect I beg to state that the informant is residing in the State and she is peace loving and law abiding housewife, and the accused person No. 1 is her legally married husband, the accused person No. 2 is the father-in-law of the informant, and the accused persons No. 3, 4 & 5 are the sister-in-law of the informant and husbands of sisters-in-law of the informant.
It is stated that on 14.07.2013, the marriage between the informant and the accused person Bo.1 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs. In that marriage, the parents of the informant by borrowing money, gave Rs. 50,000/- in cash, one motor cycle (Hero Honda Glamour), Golden chain, ring to accused person No. 1, Golden Neckless, Har, bangles, chur, two golden churi, mantasha, ear ring, Box Khat, Alna, Tea Table, Dressing Table, VIP Sofa Set, Showcase, Steel Almirah, LCD TV, dress materials, utensils, i.e., in total worth Rs. 10,00,000/-.
After the marriage, the informant went to the house of the accused person No. 1 and on 17th July, 2013, i.e., on the day of Boubhat, the informant fell ill, and accordingly, she was taken to B.R. Ambedkar Hospital for her treatment, and on that day she was released from the hospital. On that date at night, she again fell ill, and the accused persons informed the parents of the informant. On arrival, the father of the informant found that the accused persons did not take any steps for her treatment. On the other hand, all the golden ornaments were removed. At that time, the father of the informant took her in ILS Hospital and treated her.
After release from hospital, when she went to the house of her inlaws, all the accused persons drove her out from the house, and told that as the informant is sick, they would again organize marriage of accused person No. 1. Finding no other alternative, the informant came to her parental home, and informed entire incidents. Thereafter, the relatives of informant tried to send her in her in-laws house. On 26.07.2013, the informant and her uncle of went to the house of accused persons, and the accused person by abusing filthy language drove them out from their house, and told them that as the informant is a sugar patient they would not treat her as wife of accused person No. 1 and they would again organize marriage of accused person No. 1. Thereafter, the informant and her uncle returned to home.
Thereafter, on several occasions the informant tried to restore the relation with the accused person No. 1. On 17.11.2013, the informant convened a village meeting at Laxmanpara with the local people, and in that meeting the accused person No. 1 & 2 told that accused person No. 1 is not interested to maintain relation with the informant as husband and wife, and that time, the local people advised her to take legal action.
On 27.12.2013, the accused person Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 by a vehicle, came to the house of the father of the informant, and by threatening the informant and her father they told that they would not accept the informant as wife of accused person No.1, and if through Panchayat or other means, they send the informant, they would kill her.
The informant tried her level best to restore the relation, but all her efforts went on vain, and finding no other alternative, she is approac
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.