Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 7798
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Rajani Dubey, J
Sakila Begam – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRMP No. 2308 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Ms. Deepa Chaturvedi
For the Respondents: Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini
Only individuals defined as 'husband' or 'relatives' under IPC Section 498A can be prosecuted for related offenses, quashing FIR against a mere neighbor.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner, named in FIR, argued no direct involvement in alleged cruelty - Court clarified that under Section 498A, only husband or relatives can be accused - since petitioner is a neighbor, no connection established with alleged crime - FIR quashed as no material against the petitioner. (Paras 12 and 13)
(B) Alternative perspectives on the registration of the FIR discussed, mentioning lack of sufficient grounds against petitioner, emphasizing role of police discretion in cognizable offenses. (Paras 2 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was named in an FIR of cruelty lodged by the complainant against her husband and in-laws, who lived separately. She claimed no instigation or harassment towards the complainant exists, nor connection to the husband.
Findings of Court:
Court determined no familial relation existed between the petitioner and the complainant's husband in context of IPC Section 498A, leading to the decision to quash the FIR.
Issues: The crucial question was whether the petitioner, as a neighbor, could be included under the legal definition of “relative” in Section 498A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the strict interpretation of the definition of “relative” for Section 498A, concluding that no offense could be established against the petitioner.
Result: The impugned FIR was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against petitioner lack basis. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court emphasized the necessity of comparability in initiating fir. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court detailed elements required to establish ipc 498a offence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarified the definition of 'relative' for strict application. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. concluded with the allowance of the petition to quash the fir. (Para 13 , 14) |
1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Ms. Deepa Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents/State.
2. Though the notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the same has also been served, but none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 to contest the matter.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
- “It is therefore, prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to allow this petition and further be pleased to quash the FIR dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) registered as Crime No. 203/2018 at Police Station Bikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) against the present petitioner and further be pleased to quash entire subsequent consequential criminal proceedings, in the interest of justice.”
4. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioner, are that the respondent No. 2 / Smt. Rehana Quraishi had lodged an FIR at Police Station Baikunthpur against her husband and in-laws under Sections 498A , 34 of the IPC, to the effect that she has been maltreated and harassed by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry and now she has been living separately in her maternal house for last two years. The petitioner got to know that in the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2, her name was also mentioned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, the respondent No. 2 has made allegation against the petitioner stating that she is an Anganbadi Worker of the Ward No. 9 and has instigated her husband for committing offence which is punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has no direct or indirect role in the instant crime and further the petitioner has never instigated the complainant’s husband for harassing her physically or mentally. He further submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR is considered true against the petitioner, no offence under Section 498A of the IPC is made out against her because Section 498A of the IPC can be registered only against the husband or his relatives and admittedly, the petitioner is not a relative of husband of the complainant, therefore, offence under Section 498A of the IPC against the petitioner is not made out. He also submits that the allegation made against the petitioner in the FIR is not sufficient to show that she is involved in any kind of harassment or maltreatment to the complainant and further the complainant herself is mature lady of 34 years of age, who has four children and therefore, no question of instigation arises and therefore, no cruelty on the part of the petitioner against the complainant is made out. He also submits that it is a undistputed fact that there was dispute between the husband of the complainant and the complainant, therefore, she is living in her maternal house but there is no dispute between the complainant and the petitioner. He further submits that though the case was registered in the year 2018, but till date, no charge-sheet has been filed by the Police. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR is liable to be set- aside.
6. Learned State counsel submits that the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the instant petition are without sum and substance.
It is respectfully submitted that upon receiving complaint from the respondent No. 2 / complainant Smt. Rehana Quraishi, the Police of Police Station Baikunthpur, District Koriya registered the aforesaid FIR bearing Crime No. 203/2018 for offence
