IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42633 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3331 Year- 2012 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE District-
VAISHALI(HAJIPUR)
1. Asha Devi daughter of Ram Chandra Rai, resident of village- Sharariya, P.S-
Lalganj, District- Vaishali.
2. Ram Chandra Rai son of Late Yodha Rai, resident of village- Sharariya, P.S-
Lalganj, District- Vaishali.
3. Deepak Singh @ Deepak Kumar Yadav son of Asha Devi, resident of village-
Sharariya, P.S- Lalganj, District- Vaishali.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jaleshwari Devi @ Dahali Devi wife of Chandeshwar Rai, resident of village-
Amritpur, P.S- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
…. …. Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-04-2017
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short „the CrPC‟) has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Vaishali in Trial No.3194 of 2013 arising out of
Complaint Case No.3331 of 2012 by which finding a prima facie case
to be made out under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for
short „the IPC‟) the petitioners along with one Chandeshwar Rai have
been summoned to face trial.
2. The complaint has been instituted with allegation that co-
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42633 of 2013 dt.08-04-2017
2/6
accused Chandeshwar Rai, the husband of the complainant had
developed extra marital relationship with the petitioner no.1 Asha
Devi, daughter of petitioner no.2 Ram Chandra Rai and mother of
petitioner no.3 Deepak Singh @ Deepak Kumar Yadav. On protest
made by the complainant, her husband Chandeshwar Rai assaulted her
and called other accused persons and with their assistance kicked her
out of the matrimonial house after retaining her ornaments.
3. On the basis of the above allegation, after conducting
enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 20.04.2013 summoned the
petitioners and aforesaid Chandeshwar Rai to face prosecution under
Section 498A of the IPC.
4. A short but pointed argument has been advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be
prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC since,
admittedly, they are not the „relatives‟ of the husband of the
complainant. He submitted that a married lady or her relatives having
extra marital relationship with a married man, who has no relationship
with that lady cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC.
5. Fortunately, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
conceded that the petitioners are in no way related to the husband of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42633 of 2013 dt.08-04-2017
3/6
the complainant. He also conceded that existence of relationship
between the accused husband and the other accused is a pre-requisite
to constitute offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
6. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State pleaded differently. He submitted that these
are the questions of fact which can be determined by the learned
Magistrate at an appropriate stage of the trial. He submitted that the
impugned order summoning the petitioners to face trial is neither
vitiated in law nor on facts.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
perused the record.
8. In order to appreciate the point raised before the Court, I
deem it apposite to refer to Section 498A of the IPC, which reads as
under:-
“498A. 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 purpose 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
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42633 of 2013 dt.08-04-2017
4/6
(whether mental of 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 on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.”
9. In order to constitute an offence punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC following ingredients are necessary:-
(a) A 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.
10. Thus, necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC
are that besides the husband, the other accused persons must be
„relative‟ of the woman‟s husband.
11. The term „relative‟ has not been defined in the IPC. In
absence of any statutory definition to the „relative‟ it must be given a
meaning as is commonly understood.
12. In U.Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and
Another [(2009) 6 SCC 757], Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed:-
“In the absence of any statutory definition, the term
“relative” must be assigned a meaning as is
commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include
father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42633 of 2013 dt.08-04-20175/6
brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson, or
granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any
person. The meaning of the word “relative” would
depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally
includes a person related by blood, marriage or
adoption.”
13. In the said decision, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court further
observed:-
“By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend
or even a concubine in an etymological sense
be a “relative”. The word “relative” brings
within its purview a status. Such a status must
be conferred either by blood or marriage or
adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the
question of one being relative of another would
not arise.”
14. In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, the
petitioner no.1 is alleged to be a married lady living in relationship
with the husband of the complainant. So far as the other two
petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that they happen to be father
and mother of petitioner no.1. By no stretch of imagination these
three petitioners can be said to be „relative‟ of the husband of the
complainant.
15. In that view of the matter, in absence of one of the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42633 of 2013 dt.08-04-2017
6/6
essential ingredients of the offence, the impugned order whereby the
petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be sustained.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order 20.04.2013 passed by
the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with
Tr. No.3194 of 2013 as far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby
quashed.
17. The application stands allowed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Md.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.04.2017
Transmission
Date
