Only individuals defined as 'relatives' under Section 498A IPC can be charged; a non-relative cannot be held liable for offences under this section.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by accused No.5 in C.C.No.2338/2023 pending on the file of the XXXIX Additional CCM, Bangalore, seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A , 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 [for short, 'IPC'].

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 is married to one Mohit Roy - accused No.1, while accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are his family members. The respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint against the petitioner, which culminated in the impugned charge sheet inter alia alleging that the petitioner was the friend of accused No.1 and consequently, the petitioner was also guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the contents of the FIR, Charge Sheet, statement of witnesses etc., in order to point out that apart from the fact that the petitioner not being the member of the family of respondent No.2 or her husband, cannot be construed or treated as a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC, none of the ingredients of Section 504 or 506 of IPC have been made out by respondent No.2 in the complaint nor were they contained in the charge sheet or the statement of witnesses and consequently, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.5 deserve to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. The issue/question whether the a person who is not a relative of the husband or the member of the family of the husband could be charged with offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Another reported in(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 757 wherein it was held as under:

"6. The High Court opined that the words “paramour” and “concubine” stand on the same footing. In arriving at the said opinion, it agreed with the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vungarala Yedukondalu v. State of A.P. [1988 Cri LJ 1538 (AP)] and differed with the decision of the Bombay High Court, to opine:

“The term ‘relative’ has not been defined in the Penal Code and in the absence of any such definition, we have to go by the precedents. Assuming that the allegations made against the petitioner viz. that she is the concubine of A-1 is true, then, it is to be held that there is a living relationship between the petitioner and A-1 in the case and there are specific allegations to the fact that only at the instigation of the revision petitioner, A-1 is harassing the second respondent and as such this Court is of the considered view that a charge under Section 498-A IPC among other offence has also been rightly framed against the revision petitioner.”

7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:

(a) The woman must be married;

(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and

(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

8. The appellant herein had not been charged for abetment of a crime. Any conspiracy amongst the accused persons has also not been alleged. A woman in terms of the aforementioned provision must be subjected to cruelty by her husband and/or his relative. The word “cruelty” has also been defined in the Explanation appended thereto. It is in two parts. Clause (a) of the said Explanation refers to a conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical); Clause (b) provides for harassment of the woman, where such harassment, is with a view to coercing her or any person related t