The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court dismissed the application filed for quashing of FIR registered against the distant relatives under Section 498A of IPC and held that distant relatives cannot be excluded from the definition of ‘relative’.
This Court reiterated that the test to determine whether a person falls under the definition of relative depends upon the nature of the status of persons, which would be of persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.
Brief Facts:
This application was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 524 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also consequent charge-sheet registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 2688/2022 pending before Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The applicants submitted that the husband of non-applicant no. 2 (complainant) - Akash Bhaskar had not filed this application, but the distant relatives filed this application, seeking quashing of the criminal proceeding. They submitted that there were neither any specific allegations made against any of these applicants nor was there any material showing that any of these applicants had resided together with non-applicant no. 2.
Therefore, he submitted that none of the applicants falls within the definition of the relatives, to attribute them any such cruelty as complemented under Section 498-A of the IPC. The applicants placed reliance upon the case of U. Suvetha v State by Inspector of Police [(2009) 6 SCC 757].
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent submitted that if one carefully reads the FIR and the statements of witnesses, one would find sufficient material, which would necessitate framing of charge against the applicants. They were put on trial as there were specific allegations made against each of the applicants, which prima facie amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. The Respondent also contended that the reliance could not be made on the judgment of U. Suvetha since the material facts of both cases are different.
Observation of the Court
This Court observed that the applicants appear to be residing at some different places than the marital residence of non-applicant no. 2, but, the allegations contained in the FIR and also statements of witnesses do indicate that there used to be several occasions when all these applicants or some of them had on one or the other event gathered together in the house, where non-applicant no. 2 had resided.
These applicants, on different occasions, also had opportunities to talk personally or on the telephone with non-applicant no. 2. On these occasions, they subjected non-applicant no. 2 to humiliation, harassment and cruelty. Therefore, the Counsel submitted that this is not a case where the applicants, by virtue of their separate residence, could be presumed not to have treated non-applicant no. 2 in a cruel manner.
The Court found that the case of U. Suvetha renders reasonable assistance to the prosecution’s case. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed that the term “relative” has not been statutorily defined, but, its meaning could be ascertained from the ordinary sense in which it is understood, and this could be done by making a reference to the definition of the term “relative” given in a dictionary.
By considering the dictionary meaning of the term “relative”, the Apex Court held that the meaning of word “relative” would depend upon the nature of the status of persons, which would be of those persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. In U. Suvetha case, it had been observed by the Supreme Court that the word “relative” brings within its purview a status and then it went on to explain it as something which is conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. Therefore, the argument that a distant relative would be out of the scope of Section 498-A of IPC was not accepted.
The decision of the Court:
This Court found out that the applicants had abused the process of law by filing this application despite the fact that they were aware of the nature of allegations made against them, which requires consideration. Therefore, the application was dismissed with a cost of ₹10,000.
Case Title: Sunita Kumari and others v. State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Hon’ble Justice M.W. Chandwani
Case no.: Criminal Application (APL) No. 1660 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. D.V. Mahajan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, APP
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
