Again this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a woman living with a married man, can not be called his relative, for the purpose of IPC 498Aa and hence charge of harassment can not be laid on her by knife.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
Curious point in this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is that
It is true by virtue of marriage between A1 and complainant, the relatives of one side became relatives of both sides in a general sense. However, for the strict construction of penal provision under Section 498A, A6 who was the relative of the complainant, cannot be said to be the relative of the husband of the complainant i.e.A1. For this reason and also for the reason that no allegations of cruelty falling within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and the allegations touching other offences are made against A6, she deserves quashment of the proceedings.
Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
Based on U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009, Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi has held that
since the status of the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as envisaged u/s 498A I.P.C., she cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed under the said section.
Moreover,
So far as the Section 323/ 406 I.P.C. is concerned, allegations have been specifically levelled against other accused persons and in that context also the complaint petition does not reveal any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner in this present criminal case.
State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person who is not a relative of husband, like in this case, Gurmit is the brother of his aunt (chachi), may not be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304B IPC.
Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that there is no material against the petitioner to prosecute under 498A/34, 379/34, 494 IPC and 3 of the D.P.Act, hence all proceedings are quashed.
S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
This is a border-case judgment, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held so,
In the above facts and circumstances and with reference to the law as laid down by the apex court, for purposes of Section 498A of the IPC, though it may not be essential that a legally valid marriage is established, it was necessary to establish that the petitioner and the complainant had lived together as husband and wife. In this regard, there is sadly no evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, even the wider definition applied to the expressions ‘husband’ and ‘marriage’ with reference to the decisions of the apex court referred to hereinabove would not come to the aid of the prosecution.
Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that IPC 498A is applicable to only relatives of husband who are blood relatives or by marriage. And thereby quashed the IPC 498A allegation from FIR. It let the proceeding to continue with IPC 406, in regards to the jewelry.
Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the proceedings under IPC 498A, just because husband didn’t respond while he was on his personal tour, the knife alleged illicit relationship to her husband. And the Court rightly dust-binned the case as illicit relationship does not attract IPC 498A provisions, even if taken to be true.
Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, has quashed the order of taking cognizance in 498A case and also the FIR. Very good and reasoned judgment.
Both husband and knife file separate divorce petitions one after another and then filed MCD too, which got allowed.
Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017
Based on U.Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that when there is no marriage, IPC 498A can not be made applicable. Hence it was removed from case and asked the lower court to complete the trial in 3 months.
