ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No. 325 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

2. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is shown as A-2 in the case and she is not relative of her husband. It is alleged that information submitted to the police to the effect that respondent No.2 is receiving some objectionable messages from one Mr. Jayavardhan, who is friend of A-1. The said SIM card stands in the name of present petitioner, who is colleague of A-1. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner being an outsider of the family, the case is not maintainable against her along with Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent No.1 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders, since the petitioner is not the relative of her husband.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that as per the Charge Sheet, the offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are there against the petitioner, but not Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, the case can be proceeded against the petitioner. At the instance of A-2 and A-3, A-1 used to harass the petitioner for additional dowry, hence prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

6. Considering the submissions made and fair look at the contentions of information, which was submitted to the Police by respondent No.2, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner herein is not relative of A-1. Admittedly, the petitioner is a colleague in the office of A-1. No doubt, some allegations made against the petitioner to the fact that in the name of Mr.

Jayavardhan, she used to send abusive messages to respondent No.2.

7. It is pertinent to state that, Section 498-A of I.P.C. is a powerful weapon engrafted by the law, to the rescue of a married woman, subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or by the relative of husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in U. Suvetha v. State 1 “ ” , interpreted the term “relative” as appearing in Section

498-A of I.P.C., in the following terms:

“9. The word “cruelty” having been defined in terms of the aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the “husband” or his “relative”. Either the husband of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not (sic) been instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Penal Code and the appellant may be held guilty for abetment of commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.

10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term “relative” must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word “relative” would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption.

*****

13. Furthermore, Section 498-A is a penal one. It, thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and e