*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
+CRL.M.C.4416/2015CRL.M.A.15604/2015
Judgmentreservedon:02.05.2018
Dateofdecision:30.05.2019
AKHTARMALIKANR……Petitioners
Through:Mr.SunilSharma,Advocate.
versus
THESTATE(NCTOFDELHI)ANR……Respondents
Through:Mr.RaghuvinderVarma,APP
forStatewithSIDevender
Singh,PSGovindpuri.
NoneforR-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICEANUMALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANUMALHOTRA,J.
1.Thepetitionersi.e.AkhtarMaliks/oSh.HakimuddinandHanif
Maliks/oSh.Hakimuddin,videthepresentpetitionseekquashingof
theFIRNo.461/2013dated02.07.2013,PSGovindpuriunderSections
498A/Section406/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860,andtheresultantcharge
sheetsubmittingtotheeffectthattheyhavebeenarrayedasthe
accusedpersonsincolumnno.11withouttheirarrestandthatthe
learnedMetropolitanMagistratevideorderdated11.09.2015has
takencognizanceandissuedsummonstothem,buttheyaredistant
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page1of18
relativesofthehusbandoftherespondentno.2,Ms.Rubyw/oSh.
SaleemMalik,inasmuchasthey,thepetitionersarethematernal
unclesoftheJethanii.e.thewifeoftheelderbrotherofthehusbandof
thecomplainant/respondentno.2andthatthus,theallegations
levelledagainstthemarefarfetchedandthattheydonotfallwithin
theambitoftheterm’relativeofthehusband’underSection498Aof
theIndianPenalCode,1860andthatthesummoningorderisbanned
inlaw.
2.TheFIRregisteredintheinstantcasewaslodgedon
02.07.2013at7.15PMonthecomplaintmadebytherespondentno.2
i.e.thecomplainant,thewifeofSh.Saleem,s/oSh.Kamruddin,r/o
H.No.T.A.308,GaliNo.5,Tuglakabad,NewDelhi,inwhichthe
complainant/respondentno.2allegedthatshehadbeenharassedby
herin-lawswithdowrydemandsandforhavingnotfulfilledthe
demandsofherin-lawsofacarbyherfamilymembers.Asperthe
FIR,initiallythebehaviorofherrelativeswasquitealrightbutafter
shegavebirthtoasonon18.06.2005,herin-lawsi.e.herparents-in-
law,herhusbandandotherfamilymembersstartedcompellingherin
thehospitaltogivehersoninadoptiontohersister-in-law(Nanad)
namedSmt.Bano,butwhenshe,thecomplainantrefusedtodoso,her
husbandslappedherandherparents-in-law,sisters-in-law(two
JethanisandNanad)abusedheri.e.thecomplainant,asaconsequence
ofwhichtherewasalotofnoiseandonhearingthenoise,thenurse
cameandsentallthosepersonsoutoftheroom,whereafter,her
husbandandin-lawsbecamefurtheradversetoheranddidnotlook
afterhernorherchildevenafterherdischargefromthehospitaland
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page2of18
herhusbandandherin-lawstoldherthattheywouldneverletherlive
withpeaceinthehouseandthereafter,hersister-in-law(Nanad)
namelyBanocaughtholdofherhairandslappedherandtoldherthat
shewouldnowliveinthehouseasamaidservantandthereafterthey
harassedherevenmoreandthereweredemandsofdowrymadeand
herhusband,herparents-in-law,brothers-in-law(Jeth),sisters-in-law
(JethanisNanad)statedthatherfatherhadnotgivenacarinthe
marriageandthus,hewouldhavetogiveacarinthe’Chochak’ofthe
child,otherwise,herfamilywouldhavetobeartheconsequencesand
thereupon,shecamebacktoherparentalhomebutdidnottell
anythingtoherfatherinviewofhisconditionbutwhenshereturned
tohermatrimonialhome,herfatherhadgivenherarticlesworth
Rs.1,50,000/-butdespitethesame,herin-laws’werenothappyand
herparents-in-law,herbrothers-in-law(Jeths),sisters-in-law(Jethanis
Nanad)regularlybeatherwithfistblowsandkicksforhavingnot
broughtsufficientdowryandforhavingnotbroughtacar.
3.InteraliathroughtheFIR,thecomplainantfurtheralleged
thathersister-in-law(Jethani)Farzanathreatenedhereverytime
abouthermaternaluncles(i.e.Farzana’smaternaluncles)namely
AkhtarandHanif(i.e.thepetitionersherein)thatthecomplainant
didnotknowthattheywereverybadpersons(badmash)andthat
theywouldmakethelifeofherfathermiserableandwouldget
himinvolvedinafalsecase.Itwasfurtherstatedthroughthesaid
FIRbythecomplainantthatoneday,hersister-in-law(Jethani)
Farzanacalledthesetwopersons(i.e.thepetitionersherein)toher
in-laws’houseandinstigatedthemagainstthecomplainantand
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page3of18
thesepersons(i.e.thepetitionersherein)threatenedthe
complainantthatifshedidnotfulfilthedemandsofherin-laws
thenbothofthemwouldgetherhusbandmarriedthesecondtime
andwouldnotlether,thecomplainantliveinhermatrimonial
home.
4.AsperthefurtheravermentsmadeintheFIR,itwasstatedby
thecomplainantthatsheinformedthistoherfatherandherfather
pleadedwithherin-lawsandrequestedthemnottoharasshisdaughter
forhedidnothaveanymoremeanstopurchaseacarforthembut
noneofthisaffectedherin-lawsandtheyrepeatedlyharassedherwith
dowrydemandsandbeatherandwheneverhersister-in-law(Nanad)
namedBanocametoherin-lawshouse,thensheusedtomisbehave
withthecomplainantandusedtobeatherandusedtotauntherandall
thesepersonsusedtothreatenthattheywouldgetherkilledandthat
hersister-in-law(Jethani)wifeofIslamalsothreatenedherthatshe
wouldnotletthecomplainantstayinherin-lawshouseandthese
personsforeverymatterusedtothreatenthecomplainantthatthey
wouldgetherhusbandSaleemre-marriedandthatshesubsequently
learnton19.04.2013,thatherhusbandwasre-marriedon17.04.2013.
5.Thecomplainantfurtherallegedthatthepetitionershereini.e.
AkhtarandHanifwerethepersonswhowereresponsibleforthis
secondmarriageofthecomplainant’shusband.Shefurtherstatedthat
thesepersonsi.e.thepetitionershereinalsousedtokeepcompelling
hertoleavethematrimonialhomeandthaton05.05.2013,shewas
askedbythepetitionershereintoleavehermatrimonialhomeasthe
newbridewastocomebutshe,thecomplainantrefusedtoleavethe
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page4of18
matrimonialhomeandthen,herhusband,herparents-in-law,her
brother-in-lawandhissonnamelyAsif,sisters-in-law(Jethanisand
Nanad)boltedherinaroomandbeatherwithfistblowsandkicksand
threatenedherandtoldherthatifshecameoutofthehouse,she
wouldbeburntalive.
6.AspertheFIR,thecomplainantallegedthatherbrother-in-
law’sson(sonofherJeth)namedAsifcamewithaknifeinhishand
andtoldherthathewouldkillherbyinflictingituponherifshedid
notleavethehouseandatabout10.00PM,shewasthreatenedthat
shewouldbethrownfromtheroofofthehouse,whereaftershe
informedthepoliceandthepolicegothermedicallyexaminedand
FIRNo.296/13wasregisteredatPSGovindpuriunderSections
342/Section323/Section506/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860.Thecomplainant
furtherstatedthroughtheFIRthaton13.05.2013atabout10.00PM,
whenshewaslyingdowninaroominherin-laws’house,ofwhich
theinnerlatchhadbeenbrokenbyherfather-in-lawon17.04.2013,
herJethnamelyIslamsuddenlyenteredintheroomandpickedupher
phoneandthenwhensheaskedherastowhyhehadcomeandwhy
hehadpickedherphone,thenIslamtoldherthatshe,thecomplainant
wouldsleepwithhimandonlythenhewouldreturnherphonetoher
andthatshewouldsleepwithhimjustassheusedtosleepwithher
husbandSaleem,towhichthecomplainantrepliedthatshewould
neverdothesameandwouldneverletIslamthesame,onwhichIslam
pressedhermouthandstartedattemptingtooutragehermodestyand
toreherclothesandshesomehowmanagedtocatchholdofthe
cricketbatofherchild,sothatshecouldbeatIslam,onwhichheran
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page5of18
awayfromthereandwhilsthewasrunningaway,hethreatenedthe
complainantandifshetoldanyone,hewouldkillherson.
7.InteraliathroughtheFIR,thecomplainantallegedthatshehad
telephonedthepoliceandalsogotalockfixedoutsideherroomand
hadcometoherparentalhomeon14.05.2013onwhichthepolice
registeredtheFIRNo.332/13,PSGovindpuriunderSections
354A/Section354B.Thecomplainantfurtherallegedthatallherarticlesand
streedhanhadnotbeenreturnedtohersofarandthatsheleftallher
dowryarticlesathermatrimonialhome.
8.Thechargesheetsubmittedintheinstantcaseisonthesame
footingasavermentsmadeintheFIRinwhichitwasinteraliaalso
statedthatthespouseofthecomplainantnamedSaleemdeniedhaving
takenanydowryarticlesandfurtherstatedthathehadalready
divorcedSmt.RubyandsubmittedthecopyoftheTalaknama,which
wasdulyverifiedfromDoctorMuftiMukarramAhmed,ShahiImam,
FathepuriShahiMasjid,Delhi,whostatedthatheonlygaveafatwa
butnodivorcewasgiveninhispresence.Allaccusedpersonsnamed
intheFIRwerethus,ontheallegationsinthechargesheetcontended
tohavecommittedtheoffencespunishableunderSections
498A/Section406/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860.
9.Noticeofthepetitionwasissuedtothetworespondentsand
submissionsweremadeonbehalfofeithersideon02.05.2018.
10.Noreplyhavingbeenfiledbytherespondentno.2despite
ampleopportunitiesgrantedsince08.03.2016,thegrantofafurther
opportunityforfilingthesamewasdeclinedvideorderdated
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page6of18
19.01.2018.Videproceedingsdated19.10.2015,thetrialagainstthe
petitionersaspendinginthelearnedTrialCourt,hasbeenstayed.
11.Attheoutset,itisessentialtoobservethatthough,the
proceedingsbeforethelearnedTrialCourthavebeenstayedvide
orderdated19.10.2015,itisapparentthattheadjudicationofthe
presentpetitionisconfinedtotheallegationslevelledagainstthe
presentpetitionersnamelyAkhtarMalikandHanifMalikanddoesnot
inanymanneraffectthemeritsordemeritsofthecontentionsraised
beforethelearnedTrialCourtandthechargesheetfiledbytheState
againsttheaccusedotherthanthepresentpetitionersnamedAkhtar
andHanif.
12.Ithasbeencontendedonbehalfofthepetitionersthatthe
learnedTrialCourthasnottakenintoaccountthatthereisnodemand
ofdowrymadebythepetitionersforthemselvesandthattheyhave
beenerroneouslysummonedandthatthepetitionersdidnotfallwithin
thedefinitionof’relativesofhusband’underSection498Aofthe
IndianPenalCode,1860anddidnotfallwithinthecategoryof
relativesofthehusbandandthatthewords’relativeofthehusband’
underSection498AoftheIndianPenalCode,1860insertedintothe
enactmentcanneverhavebeensoinsertedtomeaneverypersonwho
wasmerelyremotelyconnectedwiththemaincharactersofthecase.
Thepetitionersfurthersubmittedthattheyarestatedtobematernal
uncles(Mamas)ofthesister-in-law(Jethani)ofthecomplainantand
canthus,betermedtobetherelativesofthesister-in-law(Jethani)of
thecomplainantandcannotbetermedtobetherelativesofthe
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page7of18
husbandofthecomplainantandthepetitionershavesubmittedthat
theirsummoningtofacethetrialhasresultedintogreatmiscarriageof
justiceandthatthepresentpetitionerscannotbeallowedtostandthe
trialquathechargesheetsubmitted.
13.Duringthecourseofargumentsthatwereaddressedonbehalf
ofthepetitioners,reliancewasplacedontheirbehalfbythelearned
counselontheverdictoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtin”U.Suvetha
Vs.StateByInspectorofPoliceandAnr.”(2009)3SCCCrl.36.
14.TheverdictoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthesaidcase”U.
SuvethaVs.StateByInspectorofPoliceandAnr.”(supra)observes
videpara7,10,11,12,13,1415totheeffect:-
“7.Ingredientsof498ASectionoftheIndianPenalCodeare:-
a).Thewomanmustbemarried;
b)Shemustbesubjectedtocrueltyorharassment;
and
c)Suchcrueltyorharassmentmusthavebeenshown
eitherbyhusbandofthewomanorbytherelativeofher
husband.
……
……
10.Intheabsenceofanystatutorydefinition,theterm
`relative’mustbeassignedameaningasiscommonly
understood.Ordinarilyitwouldincludefather,mother,
husbandorwife,son,daughter,brother,sister,nephew
orniece,grandsonorgrand-daughterofanindividual
orthespouseofanyperson.Themeaningoftheword
`relative’woulddependuponthenatureofthestatute.It
principallyincludesapersonrelatedbyblood,marriage
oradoption.
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page8of18
11.Theword`relative’hasbeendefinedinP.
RamanathaAiyarAdvancedLawLexicon-Volume4,
3rdEditionasunder:-
“Relative,”RELATIVE”includesanypersonrelatedby
blood,marriageoradoption.[LunacyAct].
Theexpression”RELATIVE”meansahusbandwife,
ancestor,linealdescendant,brotherorsister.[SectionEstate
DutyAct].
“RELATIVE”meansinrelationtothedeceased,
a)thewifeorhusbandofthedeceased;
b)thefather,mother,children,unclesandauntsofthe
deceased,and
c)anyissueofanypersonfalling,withineitherofthe
precedingsub-clausesandtheotherpartytoamarriage
withanysuchpersonorissue[SectionEstateDutyAct….].
Apersonshallbedeemedtobearelativeofanotherif,
andonlyif,-
a)theyarethemembersofaHinduundivided
family,or
b)theyarehusbandandwife;or
c)theoneisrelatedtotheotherinthemanner
indicatedinScheduleI-A[SectionCompaniesAct,1956].
“RELATIVE”inrelationtoanindividualmeans-
a)Themother,father,husbandorwifeofthe
individual,or
b)ason,daughter,brother,sister,nephewor
nieceoftheindividual,or
c)agrandsonorgrand-daughterofthe
individual,or
d)thespouseofanypersonreferredtoinsub-
clause(b)[IncometaxAct].
“RELATIVE”means-
1)spouseoftheperson;
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page9of18
2)brotherorsisteroftheperson;
3)brotherorsisterofthespouseoftheperson;
4)anylinealascendantordescendantofthe
person;
5)anylinealascendantordescendantofthe
spouseoftheperson;
[NarcoticDrugsandSectionPsychotropicSubstancesAct].”
12.RandomHouseWebster’sConciseCollegeDictionary
defines`relative’atpage691tomean:-
“Relativen.1.apersonwhoisconnectedwithanotheror
othersbybloodormarriage.2.somethinghaving,or
standingin,somerelationtosomethingelse.3.something
dependentuponexternalconditionsforitsspecific
nature,size,etc.(opposedtoabsolute).4.arelative
pronoun,adjective,oradverb.-adj.5.consideredin
relationtosomethingelse;comparative:therelative
meritsofgasandelectricheating.6.existingorhaving
itsspecificnatureonlybyrelationtosomethingelse;not
absoluteorindependent:Happinessisrelative.7.having
relationorconnection.8.havingreference:relevant;
pertinent(usuallyfol.byto):twofactsrelativetothe
case.9.correspondent;proportionate:10.dependingfor
significanceuponsomethingelse:”Better”isarelative
term.11.ofordesignatingawordthatintroducesa
subordinateclauseandreferstoanexpressedorimplied
elementoftheprincipalclause:therelativepronounwho
in”Thatwasthewomanwhocalled.”12.(ofamusical
key)havingthesamekeysignatureasanotherkey:a
relativeminor.”
13.Furthermore,Section498-Aisapenalone.It,thus,
deservesstrictconstruction.Ordinarily,saveandexcept
whereacontextualmeaningisrequiredtobegiventoa
statute,apenalprovisionisrequiredtobeconstrued
strictly.
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page10of18
ThisCourtinSectionT.AshokPaiv.CommissionerofIncome
Tax,Bangalore,[2007(8)SCALE354]heldasunder:-
“17.Itisnowawell-settledprincipleoflawthatthemore
isthestringentlaw,morestrictconstructionthereof
wouldbenecessary.Evenwhentheburdenisrequiredto
bedischargedbyanassessee,itwouldnotbeasheavyas
theprosecution.[SectionSeeP.N.KrishnaLalandOrs.v.Govt.
ofKerala.)”[SeealsoSectionNoorAgav.StateofPunjab].
14.AThreeJudgeBenchofthisCourt,however,in
SectionShivcharanLalVermaandanotherv.StateofM.P.,
[2002(2)Crimes177SCJT(2002)2SC641]while
interpretingSedction498ASectionoftheIndianPenalCode,ina
casewheretheprosecutionallegedthatduringthelifeof
thefirstwife-Kalindi,appellantthereinmarriedforthe
secondtime,Mohini,butaftermarriagebothKalindiand
ShivCharantorturedMohiniasaresultthereof,she
ultimatelycommittedsuicidebyburningherself,opined:-
“..One,whethertheprosecutionunderSection
498Acanatallbeattractedsincethemarriage
withMohiniitselfwasnullandvoid,thesame
havingbeenperformedduringthelifetimeof
Kalindi.Second,whethertheconvictionunder
Section306couldatallbesustainedinthe
absenceofanypositivematerialtoholdthat
Mohinicommittedsuicidebecauseofany
positiveactonthepartofeitherShivCharanor
Kalindi.Theremaybeconsiderableforceinthe
argumentofMr.Khanduja,learnedcounselfor
theappellantsofarasconvictionunderSection
498Aisconcerned,inasmuchasthealleged
marriagewithMohiniduringthesubsistenceof
validmarriagewithKalindiisnullandvoid.We,CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page11of18
therefore,setasidetheconvictionandsentence
underSection498AoftheIPC.”
15.ATwoJudgeBenchofthisCourt,however,inSectionReema
Aggarwalv.Anupam,[(2004)3SCC199],while
construingtheexpression’husband’opinedthattheword
shouldnotbegivenarestrictedmeaningtoincludethose,
whohadmarriedforthesecondtimestrictlyin
accordancewithlaw,stating:-
“…Ifsuchrestrictedmeaningisgiven,itwould
notfurtherthelegislativeintent.Onthe
contrary,itwouldbeagainsttheconcernshown
bythelegislatureforavoidingharassmenttoa
womanoverdemandofmoneyinrelationto
marriages.ThefirstexceptiontoSection494has
alsosomerelevance.Accordingtoit,theoffence
ofbigamywillnotapplyto”anypersonwhose
marriagewithsuchhusbandorwifehasbeen
declaredvoidbyacourtofcompetent
jurisdiction”.Itwouldbeappropriateto
construetheexpression”husband”tocovera
personwhoentersintomaritalrelationshipand
underthecolourofsuchproclaimedorfeigned
statusofhusbandsubjectsthewomanconcerned
tocrueltyorcoercesherinanymannerorfor
anyofthepurposesenumeratedintherelevant
provisions–Sections304-B/498-A,whateverbe
thelegitimacyofthemarriageitselfforthe
limitedpurposeofSections498-AandSection304-B
IPC.Suchaninterpretation,knownand
recognizedaspurposiveconstructionhasto
comeintoplayinacaseofthisnature.The
absenceofadefinitionof”husband”toCRL.M.C.4416/2015Page12of18
specificallyincludesuchpersonswhocontract
marriagesostensiblyandcohabitwithsuch
woman,inthepurportedexerciseoftheirrole
andstatusas”husband”isnogroundtoexclude
themfromthepurviewofSection304-Bor498-
ASectionIPC,viewedinthecontextoftheveryobject
andaimofthelegislationsintroducingthose
provisions.”(emphasissupplied)withitthus,havingbeenspeltoutthatSection498AoftheIndian
PenalCode,1860beingapenalprovisiondeservesastrict
construction.
15.ItisessentialtoobservethattheverdictoftheHon’bleSupreme
Courtin”U.SuvethaVs.StateByInspectorofPoliceandAnr.”
(supra)hasbeenfollowedin”StateofPunjabVs.GurmitSingh”
2014(2)ACR2315SCwithspecificreferencetoparagraphs7,89
thereof,whichreadtotheeffect:-
“7.Itisrelevantheretostatethattheexpression”relative
ofthehusband”hasbeenusedinSection498-Aofthe
IndianPenalCodeWhileinterpretingthesaidexpression,
thisCourtinthecaseofSectionU.Suvethav.StatebyInspectorof
PoliceandAnr.MANU/SC/0774/2009:(2009)6SCC787
heldittomeanapersonrelatedbyblood,marriageor
adoption.Relevantportionofthejudgmentreadsas
follows:
10.Intheabsenceofanystatutorydefinition,the
term”relative”mustbeassignedameaningasis
commonlyunderstood.Ordinarilyitwould
includefather,mother,husbandorwife,son,
daughter,brother,sister,nepheworniece,
grandsonorgranddaughterofanindividualor
thespouseofanyperson.Themeaningofthe
word”relative”woulddependuponthenatureofCRL.M.C.4416/2015Page13of18
thestatute.Itprincipallyincludesapersonrelated
byblood,marriageoradoption.
8.Theexpressionrelativeofthehusbandfurthercameup
forconsiderationinthecaseofSectionVijetaGajrav.StateofNCT
ofDelhiMANU/SC/0456/2010:(2010)11SCC618and
whileapprovingthedecisionofthisCourtinU.Suvetha
(Supra),itwasheldthatthewordrelativewouldbelimited
onlytothebloodrelationsortherelationsbymarriage.Itis
appropriatetoreproducethefollowingpassagefromthe
saidjudgment:
12.Relyingonthedictionarymeaningoftheword
“relative”andfurtherrelyingonRamanatha
Aiyar’s,AdvanceLawLexicon(Vol.4,3rdEdn.),
theCourtwentontoholdthatSection498-A
IndianPenalCodebeingapenalprovisionwould
deservestrictconstructionandunlessa
contextualmeaningisrequiredtobegiventothe
statute,thesaidstatutehastobeconstrued
strictly.OnthatbehalftheCourtreliedonthe
judgmentinSectionT.AshokPaiv.CIT
MANU/SC/7720/2007:2007)7SCC162.A
referencewasmadetothedecisioninShivcharan
alSectionVermav.StateofM.P.MANU/SC/0466/2002:
(2007)15SCC369.Afterquotingfromvarious
decisionsofthisCourt,itwasheldthatreference
totheword”relative”inSection498-AIndian
PenalCodewouldbelimitedonlytotheblood
relationsortherelationsbymarriage.
9.Itiswellknownruleofconstructionthatwhenthe
Legislatureusessamewordsindifferentpartofthe
statute,thepresumptionisthatthosewordshavebeen
usedinthesamesense,unlessdisplacedbythecontext.
Wedonotfindanythingincontexttodeviatefromthe
generalruleofinterpretation.Hence,wehavenomanner
ofdoubtthattheword”relativeofthehusband”in
Section304BoftheIndianPenalCodewouldmeansuch
persons,whoarerelatedbyblood,marriageoradoption.
WhenweapplythisprincipletheRespondenthereinisnotCRL.M.C.4416/2015Page14of18
relatedtothehusbandofthedeceasedeitherbybloodor
marriageoradoption.Hence,inouropinion,theHigh
Courtdidnoterrinpassingtheimpugnedorder.We
hastentoaddthataperson,notarelativeofthehusband,
maynotbeprosecutedforoffenceUnderSection304B
IndianPenalCodebutthisdoesnotmeanthatsucha
personcannotbeprosecutedforanyotheroffenceviz.
Section306IndianPenalCode,incasetheallegations
constituteoffenceotherthanSection304BIndianPenal
Code.”
asalsoin”VijetaGajraVs.StateofNCTofDelhi”(2010)11SCC
618,withspecificreferencetoobservationsinparagraphs11,1213
thereof,whichreadtotheeffect:-
“11.ShriU.U.Lalit,LearnedSeniorCounsel,
appearingonbehalfoftheappellantarguedthatinSectionU.
Suvethav.StateByInspectorofPoliceAnr.[(2009)6
SCC757],itwasspecificallyheldthatinordertobe
coveredunderSection498A,SectionIPConehastobea
`relative’ofthehusbandbyblood,marriageor
adoption.Hepointedoutthatthepresentappellantwas
notinanymannera`relative’asreferredtoinSection
498A,SectionIPCand,therefore,thereisnoquestionofany
allegationagainstherinrespectoftheill-treatmentof
thecomplainant.TheCourtinthiscaseexaminedthe
ingredientsofSection498A,IPCandnotingthespecific
languageoftheSectionandtheExplanationthereof
cametotheconclusionthattheword`relative’would
notincludeaparamourorconcubineorso.
12.Relyingonthedictionarymeaningoftheword
`relative’andfurtherrelyingonR.RamanathaAiyar’s
AdvanceLawLexicon,Volume4,3rdEdition,theCourt
wentontoholdthatSection498A,SectionIPCbeingapenal
provisionwoulddeservestrictconstructionandunlessa
contextualmeaningisrequiredtobegiventothe
statute,thesaidstatutehastobeconstruedstrictly.OnCRL.M.C.4416/2015Page15of18
thatbehalftheCourtreliedonthejudgmentinSectionT.Ashok
Paiv.CIT[(2007)7SCC162].Areferencewasmadeto
thedecisioninSectionShivcharanLalVermaAnr.v.Stateof
M.P.[(2007)15SCC369].Afterquotingfromvarious
decisionsofthisCourt,itwasheldthatreferencetothe
word`relative’inSection498A,SectionIPCwouldbelimited
onlytothebloodrelationsortherelationsbymarriage.
13.Relyingheavilyonthis,ShriLalitcontendedthat
thereisnoquestionofanytrialoftheappellantforthe
offenceunderSection498AIPC.Theargumentis
undoubtedlycorrect,thoughopposedbytheLearned
CounselappearingfortheState.Weareoftheopinion
thattherewillbenoquestionofherprosecutionunder
Section498AIPC.LearnedSeniorCounselappearing
onbehalfofthecomplainant,ShriSoliJ.Sorabjee,also
didnotseriouslydisputethisproposition.Therefore,we
holdthattheFIRinsofarasitconcernedSection498A
IPC,wouldbeofnoconsequenceandtheappellant
shallnotbetriedfortheoffenceunderSection498A
IPC.”
bringsforththatSection498Ahastoberelatedonlytotheblood
relationsortherelativesbymarriageofthehusbandofavictim.
16.TheverdictoftheHon’bleHighCourtofPunjabHaryanain
“AnoopOrsvs.VaniShree”2015ALLMR(Cri)351,alsodidnot
holdmembersoftheextendedfamilyrelatedtothefatherofthe
husbandofthecomplainant,whowerenotinanywayresidinginthe
sharedhouseholdofthecomplainant’shusbandtobemembersofthe
intrafamilyofthehusbandtomakethemculpableunderthe
ProtectionofWomenfromSectionDomesticViolenceAct,2005norunder
Section406/Section498AoftheIndianPenalCode,1860.
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page16of18
17.Though,onbehalfoftheState,itwascontendedthatthe
petitionbedismissed,onaconsiderationoftheverdictsrelieduponon
behalfofthepetitionersin”U.SuvethaVs.StateByInspectorof
PoliceandAnr.”(supra)andtheverdictsoftheHon’bleSupreme
Courtin”VijetaGajraVs.StateofNCTofDelhi”(supra)and”State
ofPunjabVs.GurmitSingh”(supra)inrelationtothesameaspect,it
isapparentthattheexpression’relativeofthehusband’underSection
498AoftheIndianPenalCode,1860whichisapenalprovisionhasto
begivenastrictinterpretationintheabsenceofanystatutory
definitionoftheterm’relative’whichthushastobeassigneda
meaningasisknowinglyunderstoodandistoincludeapersonrelated
byblood,marriageoradoptionaslaiddownbytheHon’bleSupreme
Courtin”U.SuvethaVs.StateByInspectorofPoliceandAnr.”
(supra)andin”VijetaGajraVs.StateofNCTofDelhi”(supra)and
thus,inthefactsandcircumstancesoftheinstantcase,itisapparent
thatthetwopresentpetitionersnamelyAkhtarandHanifarrayedas
accusedintheFIRNo.461/2013dated02.07.2013,PSGovindpuri
underSections498A/Section406/Section34oftheIndianPenalCode,1860arenot
relatedtothehusbandofthecomplainantnorbytheblood,norby
marriage,norbyadoption,inasmuchasthetwopetitionersarethe
maternalunclesofthesister-in-law(Jethani)i.e.thematernal
unclesofthesister-in-lawi.e.thewifeoftheelderbrotherofthe
husbandofthecomplainantandcanthus,notinanymannerfall
withinthemeaningoftheterm’relative’ofthehusbandofthe
complainantasbeingrelatedtohimbyblood,marriageoradoption.
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page17of18
18.Inthesecircumstances,thepetitionisallowedtotheextentthat
thepetitionersnamelyAkhtarandHanif,cannotbeprosecutedforthe
offencespunishableunderSections498A/Section406/Section34oftheIndianPenal
Code,1860inrelationtotheFIR461/2013dated02.07.2013,which
inrelationtotheoffencespunishableunderSections498A/Section406/Section34of
theIndianPenalCode,1860aloneisquashedquathetwopetitioners
alone.However,thesameshallnotpreventtheprosecutionofthe
petitionersifpermissibleinlawforanyofotheroffencethatmaybe
constitutedagainstthemonthebasisoftheallegationslevelledagainst
them.
19.Furthermore,thoughvideorderdated19.10.2015thetrial
hasbeenstayedbeforethelearnedTrialCourt,itisdirectedthat
theFIRhavingbeenquashedagainstthepresentpetitioners
namelyAkhtarandHanifalone,thetrialagainsttheremaining
accusedpersons,ifany,shallproceedexpeditiouslyinaccordance
withlaw.
20.TheapplicationCRL.M.A.15604/2015isdisposedof
accordingly.
21.CopyofthisjudgmentbesenttothelearnedTrialCourt
forthwith.
ANUMALHOTRA,J.
MAY30th,2019/NC
CRL.M.C.4416/2015Page18of18