Riya Kumari @ Nisha Kumari @ Riya Yadav @ Nisha …… v. …….. …… Opp. Parties
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1709 of 2016 Riya Kumari @ Nisha Kumari @ Riya Yadav @ Nisha …….Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Versus …….. …… Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P. --------- 08/Dated: 30/01/2024 Notice upon O.P. No.2 has been effected and appearance is already made however, nobody appeared on behalf of the O.P. No.2. Identical was the situation on 23.01.2024 and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No.2 the matter was adjourned. In that view of the matter, this petition is being heard in absence of the O.P. No.2. 2. Heard Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2015 in connection with C/1 Case No. 2032 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M at Jamshedpur. 4. The Complaint Case was filed alleging therein that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Amit Kumar according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 24.02.2014 in District-Gaya. The complainant father gave a sum of Rs.7 lakhs at Chheka and Tilak ceremony. During the course of marriage on demand of the accused, Rs.2,50,000/- ornaments, Rs.20,000/- utensils, Rs.95,000/- household articles and other articles worth of Rs.30,000/- given to the accused persons. After marriage, complainant went to her sasural at village Mayapur District Gaya. After 4-5 days, the husband of the complainant started torturing her. The complainant also came to know that her husband is in a 2 relationship with another female namely Riya Kumari @ Nisha Kumari, the present petitioner, regarding which she also complaint to her mother in law. Her husband along with his mother started torturing the complainant for dowry and often used to insult her. On one awful day when the complainant objected the stay of the present petitioner at her matrimonial house then her husband and mother in law assaulted and abused the complainant and hence the present complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated 30.11.2015 under section 498A I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that in the complaint petition allegations are made that the petitioner is the alleged girl friend of the husband of O.P. No.2. He submits that the petitioner is not relative of the husband and in view of that the cognizance taken under section 498A I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act so far the petitioner is concerned, is bad in law. He relied in the case of “U. Suvetha Versus State by Inspector of Police & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 757. He refers to paras 7 to 10 which are quoted hereinbelow:- “7. Ingredients of 498A of the Indian Penal Code are :- a). The 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." 8. Appellant herein had not been charged for abetment of a crime. Any conspiracy amongst the accused persons has also not been alleged. A woman in terms of the aforementioned provision must be subjected to cruelty by her husband and/or his relative. The word `cruelty' has also been defined in the explanation appended thereto. It is in two parts. Clause (a) of the said explanation refers to a conduct which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical); clause (b) provides for 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. It is not the case of the first informant that the appellant had any role to play with regard to demand of dowry. 9. The word `cruelty" having been defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the `husband' or his `relative". Either the husband of the woman or his relative must be subjected to her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not been instigating the 3 husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code and appellant may be held guilty for abetment of commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 10.. 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, 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.” 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations are there and in view of that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. Admittedly, there is no allegation with regard to cruelty against the petitioner. Only allegations are made that the petitioner is girl friend of the husband of O.P. No.2. The word ‘relative’ has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha (supra). Further there is no allegation against the petitioner so far section 498A I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 30.11.2015 in connection with C/1 Case No. 2032 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M at Jamshedpur, so far the petitioner is concerned, are quashed. 9. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any,
Decision
stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated. 10. This Court has not interfered with order taking cognizance and entire proceeding so far other accused persons are concerned. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/