SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Akhtar Malik & Anr. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 30 May, 2019

*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”to

CRL.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”woulddependuponthenatureof

CRL.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.
WhenweapplythisprincipletheRespondenthereinisnot

CRL.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.On

CRL.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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation