DISCHARGE PETITION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2008
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K MOHAN RAM
Criminal Revision Case No. 638 of 2008
Miss.U.Suvetha .. Revision Petitioner/petitioner/Accused
vs.
1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police, W-16, All Women Police Station,
Pulianthope, Chennai 600 012.
2.S.Manonmani
(2nd respondent has been impleaded as per order of this Court dated 17.06.2008 in M.P.No.4/2008)
.. Respondents/Respondent/Accused
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3572 of 2007 in C.c.No.2751 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 25.03.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.3572 of 2007 in C.c.No.2751 of 2007
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Radhakrishnan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.V.Subramanian
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the third accused in C.C.No.2751 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.3752 of 2007 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., for discharge from the above charges. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has dismissed the discharge petition and being aggrieved by that the above criminal revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard both. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent filed a complaint against her husband and three others alleging harassment and cruelty , etc., and on the basis of such complaint a case was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against all the four accused; the third accused, who is petitioner herein is not a relative either to the accused A1, the husband of the second respondent or to the second respondent herein and as such a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could not have been framed against the petitioner; and on that ground the discharge petition was filed, but without considering the said contention, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the following two decisions viz., 2005 - 2 -L.W. (Crl.) 807 (Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and an order in Crl. Appln. No. 388 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench).
3. In Ramesh's case ( 2005(2) L.W. Crl. 807) , the Apex Court, in para-6, has observed as under "Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of the charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz., Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant's husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time, i.e., between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonged to the informant. What was said against her in the F.I.R. Is that one some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuser her and used to pass remarks such as even if you have got much jewelry, you are our slave. It is further stated in the report that Gowry would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her . Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed."
4. In the order passed in Crl. Appln. No. 388 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008 the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) while considering the meaning of the term "relative" found in Section 498-A of IPC , has in para 5 and 6 observed as under:-
"5. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that she cannot be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498-A in view of the definition of the said Section itself, which covers only "the husband and his relatives". He would submit that the applicant cannot be termed as relative of husband of the respondent No.2 and hence, she falls outside the pale of Section 498-A. Mr.Rathod, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, however, would submit that the applicant is joined in the array of accused because she shared common intention and she is the main reason as to why the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty.
6. Considering the rival contentions and the nature of allegations in the F.I.R., it appears that the applicant may be cause of the bickering between the spouses. She may be the reason, which is at the bottom of misunderstanding between the respondent No.2 and her husband. Even assuming that due to her extra marital relation with husband of the respondent No.2, she is being ill-treated or subjected to harassment by her husband and his relatives, then also it is difficult to say that the applicant is accountable to answer the charge for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. For, she is not related to husband of the respondent NO.2 nor can be regarded as the person, who can fall within explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of the I.P.C."
5. Placing reliance on the above said decisions , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither F.I.R., nor the charge-sheet contains legal basis to frame charges as against the revision petitioner and as such the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that in the light of the decisions of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court, it has to be held that the petitioner, who is not a member of the family of either the first accused or the second respondent herein, cannot be considered to be a relative, coming within the ambit of the provisions contained under Section 498-A of IPC and as such a charge under Section 498-A of IPC ought not to have been framed against the revision petitioner. Though this aspect was raised by the revision petitioner, the same was not considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the order has to be set aside.
7. On the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent was heard. Mr.S.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that all the witnesses including the second respondent herein in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have implicated the petitioner herein with the offence for which the petitioner has been charged and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to frame charge as against the revision petitioner is unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that it is alleged in the F.I.R., as well as in the statements of the witnesses that there is illegitimate intimacy between the petitioner and the first accused and the petitioner is the concubine of the first accused and as such she will come within the definition of relative and therefore, a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could be framed against the revision petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Andrapradesh High Court reported in 1988 CRI. L.J. 1538 ( Vungarala Yedukondalu Vs. State of A.P.). In the said decision, in para-12, the Division Bench has held as under:-
" ......The accused himself stated that they quarreled on that day. But the learned counsel Mrs.Sesharajyam submitted that to attract S.498-A the harassment or cruelty must be by the husband or any relative of the husband and since the appellant is a paramour, the Section is not attracted. It is true that S.498-A speaks of harassment or cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. In the present case, the deceased and the appellant were living like husband and wife. The evidence shows that the appellant was regularly coming to the house of the deceased. In the dying declaration Ex.P-5, the deceased described the appellant as her husband saying that her husband poured kerosene and set fire to her clothes. Short of tying tali they were husband and wife. They were living together. They were sharing the income. Every witness says that the deceased was the kept mistress of the appellant. It is necessary to give such a restricted meaning to the expression "husband". Their relationship is that of husband and wife. We do not see any reason why S.498-A IPC cannot be applied to a case where a person inflicts such cruelty and harassment as to lead his mistress to commit suicide. We accordingly convict the appellant under S.498-A of IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years."
8. The above said decision, according to the learned counsel, lays down that even a paramour will fall within the ambit of the term "relative" and hence, offence under Section 498-A of IPC is attracted and in this case, the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is A3, is the concubine of the first accused and as such she comes within the definition of relative.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent also relied upon the decision reported in 2000 Crl.L.J. 4889 (State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar and antoher). In the said decision , the learned Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in para-13 has observed as under:-
"Thus, in a case where it is proved that the husband is having extra-marital relations and as a consequence thereof he beats his wife and is bent upon to turn her out of the matrimonial house, the case will squarely fall within the ambit of Section 498-A I.P.C., and it is absolutely not necessary to be established that such beating were intended to secure the fulfillment of any demand for any property or valuable security."
10. Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Government Advocate (Criminal side) was also heard on the aforesaid submissions.
11. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel. At the outset , it has to be pointed out that as pointed out by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, there are allegations as against the revision petitioner herein in the F.I.R., as well as in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation and as such, it cannot be contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the charges have been framed in the absence of any acceptable material. Therefore, the decision reported in Ramesh's case ( 2005(2) L.W. Crl. 807 SC ) relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts relating to the said decision are totally different.
12. The main question to be decided is , whether a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could have been framed against the revision petitioner, who is admittedly not a member of the family of the first accused. The allegations as against the revision petitioner is, that A1 is having illicit intimacy with her and she is the concubine of A1. It is true that such allegations have to be proved by legal evidence to be adduced in the course of trial. But at this stage, we have to go by the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses. As pointed out above, such allegations are available in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses. If such allegations are true, then, whether the petitioner will fall within the ambit of the term "relative" as found in Section 498-A of IPC is the question.
13. In the decision of the Bombay High Court, the learned single Judge has held that even assuming that due to a woman's extra marital relation with the husband of the defacto complainant , the defacto complainant is ill-treated or subjected to harassment by her husband and his relatives, then also it is difficult to say that such woman is accountable to answer a charge punishable under Section 498-A of IPC since, she is not a relative to the husband of the defacto complainant nor can be regarded as the person, who can fall within the explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of IPC. Whereas, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1988 CRI. L.J. 1538 ( Vungarala Yedukondalu Vs. State of A.P.) has held that they do not see any reason, why Sec.498-A of IPC cannot be applied to a case, where a person inflicts such a cruelty and harassment as to lead his mistress to commit suicide. There, the paramour was considered to fall within the ambit of the term "relative" found in Section 498-A of IPC and in the case on hand, we are concerned, with the petitioner, who is alleged to be the concubine of A1. The paramour and the concubine stand on the same footing. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In my considered view, the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is acceptable, rather than the view taken by the single Judge of Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad). The term "relative" has not been defined in Indian 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 A1 is true, then, it is to be held that there is a living relationship between the petitioner and A1 in the case and there are specific allegations to the fact that only at the instigation of the revision petitioner, A1 is harassing the second respondent and as such this Court is of the considered view that a charge under Section 498-A of IPC among other offences has also been rightly framed against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced.
14. For the aforesaid reason, the above Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is made clear, that except holding that the revision petitioner /A3 will fall within the term "relative" as found in Sec.498-A of IPC, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and no opinion has been expressed on the evidence available in the case. The trial Court has to independently consider the evidence and come to its own conclusion without in any way being influenced by anything said in this Order.
K.MOHAN RAM, J.
Crl.O.P.No. 638 of 2008
01.08.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2008
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K MOHAN RAM
Criminal Revision Case No. 638 of 2008
Miss.U.Suvetha .. Revision Petitioner/petitioner/Accused
vs.
1.State represented by,
The Inspector of Police, W-16, All Women Police Station,
Pulianthope, Chennai 600 012.
2.S.Manonmani
(2nd respondent has been impleaded as per order of this Court dated 17.06.2008 in M.P.No.4/2008)
.. Respondents/Respondent/Accused
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.3572 of 2007 in C.c.No.2751 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and set aside the order dated 25.03.2008 in Crl.M.P.No.3572 of 2007 in C.c.No.2751 of 2007
For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Radhakrishnan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
Government Advocate (Criminal side)
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.V.Subramanian
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the third accused in C.C.No.2751 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.3752 of 2007 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., for discharge from the above charges. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has dismissed the discharge petition and being aggrieved by that the above criminal revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard both. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent filed a complaint against her husband and three others alleging harassment and cruelty , etc., and on the basis of such complaint a case was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed against all the four accused; the third accused, who is petitioner herein is not a relative either to the accused A1, the husband of the second respondent or to the second respondent herein and as such a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could not have been framed against the petitioner; and on that ground the discharge petition was filed, but without considering the said contention, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the following two decisions viz., 2005 - 2 -L.W. (Crl.) 807 (Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and an order in Crl. Appln. No. 388 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench).
3. In Ramesh's case ( 2005(2) L.W. Crl. 807) , the Apex Court, in para-6, has observed as under "Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of the charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz., Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant's husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time, i.e., between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonged to the informant. What was said against her in the F.I.R. Is that one some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuser her and used to pass remarks such as even if you have got much jewelry, you are our slave. It is further stated in the report that Gowry would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her . Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed."
4. In the order passed in Crl. Appln. No. 388 of 2008 dated 21.04.2008 the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) while considering the meaning of the term "relative" found in Section 498-A of IPC , has in para 5 and 6 observed as under:-
"5. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that she cannot be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498-A in view of the definition of the said Section itself, which covers only "the husband and his relatives". He would submit that the applicant cannot be termed as relative of husband of the respondent No.2 and hence, she falls outside the pale of Section 498-A. Mr.Rathod, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, however, would submit that the applicant is joined in the array of accused because she shared common intention and she is the main reason as to why the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty.
6. Considering the rival contentions and the nature of allegations in the F.I.R., it appears that the applicant may be cause of the bickering between the spouses. She may be the reason, which is at the bottom of misunderstanding between the respondent No.2 and her husband. Even assuming that due to her extra marital relation with husband of the respondent No.2, she is being ill-treated or subjected to harassment by her husband and his relatives, then also it is difficult to say that the applicant is accountable to answer the charge for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. For, she is not related to husband of the respondent NO.2 nor can be regarded as the person, who can fall within explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of the I.P.C."
5. Placing reliance on the above said decisions , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither F.I.R., nor the charge-sheet contains legal basis to frame charges as against the revision petitioner and as such the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the discharge petition is liable to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that in the light of the decisions of the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court, it has to be held that the petitioner, who is not a member of the family of either the first accused or the second respondent herein, cannot be considered to be a relative, coming within the ambit of the provisions contained under Section 498-A of IPC and as such a charge under Section 498-A of IPC ought not to have been framed against the revision petitioner. Though this aspect was raised by the revision petitioner, the same was not considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, the order has to be set aside.
7. On the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent was heard. Mr.S.V.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that all the witnesses including the second respondent herein in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have implicated the petitioner herein with the offence for which the petitioner has been charged and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to frame charge as against the revision petitioner is unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that it is alleged in the F.I.R., as well as in the statements of the witnesses that there is illegitimate intimacy between the petitioner and the first accused and the petitioner is the concubine of the first accused and as such she will come within the definition of relative and therefore, a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could be framed against the revision petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Andrapradesh High Court reported in 1988 CRI. L.J. 1538 ( Vungarala Yedukondalu Vs. State of A.P.). In the said decision, in para-12, the Division Bench has held as under:-
" ......The accused himself stated that they quarreled on that day. But the learned counsel Mrs.Sesharajyam submitted that to attract S.498-A the harassment or cruelty must be by the husband or any relative of the husband and since the appellant is a paramour, the Section is not attracted. It is true that S.498-A speaks of harassment or cruelty by the husband or relative of the husband. In the present case, the deceased and the appellant were living like husband and wife. The evidence shows that the appellant was regularly coming to the house of the deceased. In the dying declaration Ex.P-5, the deceased described the appellant as her husband saying that her husband poured kerosene and set fire to her clothes. Short of tying tali they were husband and wife. They were living together. They were sharing the income. Every witness says that the deceased was the kept mistress of the appellant. It is necessary to give such a restricted meaning to the expression "husband". Their relationship is that of husband and wife. We do not see any reason why S.498-A IPC cannot be applied to a case where a person inflicts such cruelty and harassment as to lead his mistress to commit suicide. We accordingly convict the appellant under S.498-A of IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years."
8. The above said decision, according to the learned counsel, lays down that even a paramour will fall within the ambit of the term "relative" and hence, offence under Section 498-A of IPC is attracted and in this case, the specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is A3, is the concubine of the first accused and as such she comes within the definition of relative.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent also relied upon the decision reported in 2000 Crl.L.J. 4889 (State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar and antoher). In the said decision , the learned Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in para-13 has observed as under:-
"Thus, in a case where it is proved that the husband is having extra-marital relations and as a consequence thereof he beats his wife and is bent upon to turn her out of the matrimonial house, the case will squarely fall within the ambit of Section 498-A I.P.C., and it is absolutely not necessary to be established that such beating were intended to secure the fulfillment of any demand for any property or valuable security."
10. Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, Government Advocate (Criminal side) was also heard on the aforesaid submissions.
11. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submissions made by the respective learned counsel. At the outset , it has to be pointed out that as pointed out by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, there are allegations as against the revision petitioner herein in the F.I.R., as well as in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation and as such, it cannot be contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the charges have been framed in the absence of any acceptable material. Therefore, the decision reported in Ramesh's case ( 2005(2) L.W. Crl. 807 SC ) relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts relating to the said decision are totally different.
12. The main question to be decided is , whether a charge under Section 498-A of IPC could have been framed against the revision petitioner, who is admittedly not a member of the family of the first accused. The allegations as against the revision petitioner is, that A1 is having illicit intimacy with her and she is the concubine of A1. It is true that such allegations have to be proved by legal evidence to be adduced in the course of trial. But at this stage, we have to go by the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses. As pointed out above, such allegations are available in the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses. If such allegations are true, then, whether the petitioner will fall within the ambit of the term "relative" as found in Section 498-A of IPC is the question.
13. In the decision of the Bombay High Court, the learned single Judge has held that even assuming that due to a woman's extra marital relation with the husband of the defacto complainant , the defacto complainant is ill-treated or subjected to harassment by her husband and his relatives, then also it is difficult to say that such woman is accountable to answer a charge punishable under Section 498-A of IPC since, she is not a relative to the husband of the defacto complainant nor can be regarded as the person, who can fall within the explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of IPC. Whereas, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1988 CRI. L.J. 1538 ( Vungarala Yedukondalu Vs. State of A.P.) has held that they do not see any reason, why Sec.498-A of IPC cannot be applied to a case, where a person inflicts such a cruelty and harassment as to lead his mistress to commit suicide. There, the paramour was considered to fall within the ambit of the term "relative" found in Section 498-A of IPC and in the case on hand, we are concerned, with the petitioner, who is alleged to be the concubine of A1. The paramour and the concubine stand on the same footing. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In my considered view, the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is acceptable, rather than the view taken by the single Judge of Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad). The term "relative" has not been defined in Indian 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 A1 is true, then, it is to be held that there is a living relationship between the petitioner and A1 in the case and there are specific allegations to the fact that only at the instigation of the revision petitioner, A1 is harassing the second respondent and as such this Court is of the considered view that a charge under Section 498-A of IPC among other offences has also been rightly framed against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced.
14. For the aforesaid reason, the above Criminal Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. It is made clear, that except holding that the revision petitioner /A3 will fall within the term "relative" as found in Sec.498-A of IPC, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and no opinion has been expressed on the evidence available in the case. The trial Court has to independently consider the evidence and come to its own conclusion without in any way being influenced by anything said in this Order.
K.MOHAN RAM, J.
Crl.O.P.No. 638 of 2008
01.08.2008
