Order 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1, who has been alleged to have illicit relation with the husband of the informant whereas the petitioner no.2-the father of the petitioner no.1, are being prosecuted for an offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, though they, in terms of the provision as contained in Section 498A of the Indian, never happen to be the relative of the husband of the informant. 2. Since, the person other than the husband and his relative cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Bariatu P.S. Case No.142 of 2008 (G.R. No.3591 of 2008) including the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly the petitioners are not the relative of the husband of the informant rather according to the informant, the petitioner No.1 who was having illicit relation with the husband of the informant and the petitioner No.2-the father of the petitioner no.1, are being prosecuted on the allegation that they have assaulted the informant, but the court below has never taken cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code nor there appears to be any allegation with respect to commission of the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and hence, the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed so far these petitioners are concerned, as the petitioners never happen to be the relative of the husband of the informant. 4. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in { (2010)10 SCC 190 } . 5. 4. In this respect, reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in { (2010)10 SCC 190 } . 5. In the context of the submission one needs to take notice of the provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- “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 be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means- (a) any willful 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. From the aforesaid provision, it does appear that it is either the husband or relative of the husband of a woman who subjects a woman to cruelty, could be charged for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The said provision never mandates prosecution of the person other than husband or his relative. 7. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Jha (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- 15. Section 498-A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, is clear and unambiguous that only the husband or his relative could be proceeded against under the said section for subjecting the wife to “cruelty”, which has been specially defined in the said section in the Explanation thereto. The question as to who would be a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498-A has been considered in detail in U. Suvetha case. The question as to who would be a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498-A has been considered in detail in U. Suvetha case. We are entirely in agreement with the views expressed in the said case and we agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in bestowing upon the appellant the status of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit’s family. The doctrine of acknowledgment would not be available in the facts of this. No doubt, there is direct allegation against the appellant of cruelty against respondent No.2, Asha Rani Pal, but as indicated in U. Suvetha case, the same would enable Respondent 2 to proceed against her husband under Section 498-A IPC and also against the appellant under the different provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498-A IPC. 8. Under the circumstances, entire prosecution against the petitioners seems to be quite bad. 9. Further, it appears from the FIR that there has been absolutely no allegation whatsoever for attracting offence under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act so far these petitioners are concerned. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Bariatu P.S. Case No.142 of 2008 (G.R. No.3591 of 2008) including the order dated 11.08.2009 is hereby quashed, so far these petitioners are concerned. 11. In the result, this application is allowed.