Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 310 (HP)

CHAMPA VERMA v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-10-17

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) - This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, whereby a charge for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 342, 506 read with Sections 34 and 109.of the Indian Penal Code was directed to be framed against the petitioner. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed: 3. Complainant Seema Sood was married to Ajay Sood on 23rd June, 1991. She lodged a complaint with Police Station, East Shimla, on 12th September, 2001 saying that immediately after the marriage, her husband started maltreating her as he was involved with the petitioner who works in the office of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board at Kasumpti. According to her, because of the affairs of her husband with the petitioner, she was harassed by her husband who also gave her beatings. On 11th September, 2001 her husband locked her in a room along with her son and went away saying that he would come back soon, but the husband did not turn up, so she lodged a report with Police Chowki through some boy to the effect that she and her son have been locked in the room. The husband came back in the morning and she was taken out from the room by the police. On the basis of this complaint a case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 342, 506 read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the husband and the present petitioner. 4. On investigation final report was sent to the learned trial Magistrate. Learned trial Magistrate in his impugned orders after noticing the fact that the husband, Ajay Sood, expired during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner. A contention was raised by the petitioner before the trial Court that she is not relative of the husband of the complainant and therefore, no charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could be framed against her. A contention was raised by the petitioner before the trial Court that she is not relative of the husband of the complainant and therefore, no charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code could be framed against her. This contention was negatived by the learned trial Magistrate holding that expression "relative" has not to be construed in a narrow sense and any person who has anything to do with the husband would fall within the definition of "relative" for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Code. 5. I have heard Mr. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General. Section 498-A read: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also is liable to fine. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means - (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether-mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 6. It may be fruitful to notice that Chapter XXA which comprises Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. A perusal of Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction of this Chapter shows that this provision was designed to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or relatives of husband on account of unlawful demands of dowry by them. 7. A perusal of Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction of this Chapter shows that this provision was designed to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or relatives of husband on account of unlawful demands of dowry by them. 7. The Apex Court in Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 680 observed that the degradation of society due to the pernicious system of dowry and the unconscionable demands made by greedy and unscrupulous husbands and their parents and relatives resulting in an alarming number of suicidal and dowry deaths by women has shocked the Legislative conscience to such an extent that the Legislature has deemed it necessary to provide additional provisions of law, both "procedural and substantive" to combat the evil and it is with this in view that Sections 113-A and 113-B in the Indian Evidence Act and Sections 498-A and 304-B in the Indian Penal Code were introduced. 8. In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever that there was any harassment of the complainant by the petitioner which may derive her to commit suicide or cause any injury or danger to her life and limb. It is also not the case of the prosecution that any unlawful demand was made by the petitioner. The grievance of the complainant was that the husband had developed extra-marital relations with the petitioner on account of which she felt harassed. This fact situation, in my view, will not attracted provisions of Section 498-A. 9. In any event, no cruelty is attributable to the petitioner. Mere living of a husband in adultery or having extra-marital affairs would not fall within the mischief "cruelty" under Section 498-A. Adulterous conduct of a husband would not and cannot be mischief within the meaning of cruelty for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Act. Other provisions in the Penal Code take care of such conduct. 10. This apart, the contention of the petitioner that she cannot be said to be a "relative", by any stretch, for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Act has a merit. It is true that expression "relative" has not been defined in this Chapter. Nevertheless expression "relative of the husband" under this section does not take into its fold a person who is not a kinsman or blood relation of the husband or connected by consanguinity. It is true that expression "relative" has not been defined in this Chapter. Nevertheless expression "relative of the husband" under this section does not take into its fold a person who is not a kinsman or blood relation of the husband or connected by consanguinity. The expression "relative and relation" includes anyone connected by blood or affinity to the remotest degree but not strangers or friends of the husband. 11. According to Blacks Law Dictionary "Relation" means: "A relative or kinsman; a person connected by consanguinity. A person connected with another by blood or affinity." Consanguinity means: "Kinship; blood relationship; the connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor." 12. From whatever angle we may look, Section 498-A is not invokable against the petitioner. 13. It be noticed that there is no allegation against the petitioner so far wrongful confinement or criminal intimidation-under Sections 342 and 506 are concerned. 14. No other point is urged. 15. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, and dated 26th July, 2003 is set aside. The petitioner is discharged. Her bail bonds shall also stand discharged. Cr. M. P. No. 475 of 2003: 16. No order, in view of the order passed in the main petition. The application is disposed of. -