Maan Singh vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi
2002 Latest Caselaw 1228 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate arising out of FIR No. 441/1998 under Section 498A IPC of P.S. Malviya Nagar.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Kulwant Kaur filed a complaint with the Crime Against Women cell, Nanakpura alleging harassment and cruelty caused to her by her husband Maan Singh, petitioner herein, and other members of his family for demand of money and for other reasons which have been narrated in the complaint. On the basis of this complaint FIR No. 441/1998 under Section 498A/406 IPC was registered. During the investigation the supplementary statement of complainant and her parents etc. was recorded. On completion of the investigation a challan was submitted for the prosecution of the petitioner and other members of his family under Section 498A/406 IPC. At the time of consideration of the case for framing of a charge the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the accused, other than the petitioner, of all the offences and also discharged the petitioner for offence under Section 406 IPC. But holding that prima-facie a case for framing of a charge for commission of offence under Section 498A IPC is made out against the petitioner Maan Singh, the said charge was framed against him.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged it in this petition.

The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC.

Section 498A IPC is reproduced below:

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means -

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger, to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;' or

(b) 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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

Explanation (b) which is relevant define the word 'cruelty' used in Section 498A, as harassment related to demand of property or valuable security. The demand, as such, is a condition precedent to attract provision of explanation (b) of Section 498A IPC .

4. precise argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that no allegation has been made by the complainant in the complaint that the petitioner had ever demanded the dowry from her and had harassed and treated her with cruelty for compelling her to give the dowry. He is not correct in arguing that the cruelty should be relatable to the demand of dowry only. In fact demand of dowry is not a pre-condition nor is necessary to attract the provision of Section 498A IPC (See PyareLal v. State of Haryana . What is contemplated in explanation (b) of

Section 498A is that cruelty should be committed to coerce wife or her relative to meet unlawful demand of 'property or valuable security'. So a demand of money not related to dowry and the harassment of wife with a view to compel her or her parents etc. to pay it shall attract the provision of Section 498A IPC.

5. In the light of this principle of law the complaint of the wife may now be examined. In the beginning of the complaint at one place the complainant has alleged "After some months of my marriage my husband started pressurising me to bring some money from my parents to start my treatment since he had no money for my treatment. My parents came to know that their daughter is affected with jaundice. It was also known to them I was pregnant for the last 4/5 months. However, my parents got me the treatment and by grace of God I was blessed with a male child. My parents spent a sum of Rs. 12,000/- on a major operation upon me by which the baby was born." At another place she alleged "He mentioned to ask my brother to get him a job abroad. My parents issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- in his favor. (see running page 12 of paper book). Besides the petitioner also narrated as to how she was being harassed and was given mental and physical torture by the petitioner. The only inference from the reading of this complaint as a whole is that

she was being tortured and harassed so as to coerce her parents to satisfy the demand of money by the petitioner husband whether it was needed for treatment of wife or settling him in business. The complaint clearly show a nexus between cruelty/harassment of complainant wife and the demand of money. Both the constituents of offence under Section 498A IPC,

(a) the demand of property or valuable security and

(b) harassment of wife so as to coerce her and her relative to meet the demand are very much present in the complaint.

6. Moreover, in the supplementary statement she stated that all her dowry has been usurped by the petitioner. Her parents in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also stated that the petitioner was demanding scooter and other articles and was harassing and causing cruelty to the petitioner in order to compel them to satisfy his demand. As such, in the complaint itself there is allegation that the complainant was being subjected to cruelty and she was being harassed with a view to coercing her and her parents to meet their unlawful demand of money. The allegation is corroborated in the statement of her parents recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The case was registered on this complaint. It cannot be stated that commission of cognizable offence within the ambit

of Section 498A IPC was not disclosed in the complaint, therefore, no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A IPC. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner has no merit. The charge-sheet and proceedings arising there from, therefore, cannot be quashed as prayed by the petitioner. No case for invoking power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.