SUNITA JHAversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND

                       [201 O] 11 S.C.R. 648


A                           SUNITA JHA
                                 V.
                      STATE OF JHARKHAND
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1745 of 2010)
                      SEPTEMBER 13, 2010
B
           [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - s. 498A - Offence of cruelty -
    'Relative of the husband' - Complaint case filed by
C   respondent no.2-wife against her husband and appellant, who
    was living with the accused husband allegedly as his wife -
    Discharge application filed by appellant dismissed - Order
    upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Only the husband
    or his relative could be proceeded against u/s.498A - S.498A
D   cannot be applied to a person who is not a relation of the
    husband when the alleged offence is said to have been
    committed - Merely because appellant was living with the
    accused husband of respondent no.2, she did not become a
    family member of respondent no.2's husband - High Court
E   erred in bestowing upon the appellant the status of wife and,
    therefore, a family member of respondent no.2's husband -
    Doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available in the
    facts of the case - Though there is direct allegation against
    the appellant of cruelty against the respondent no.2, but the
    same would enable the respondent no. 2 to proceed against
F
    her husband u/s. 49BA and also against the appellant under
    the different provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but
    not u/s. 498A - Doctrine of acknowledgement.

        Words and Phrases:
G
        Expression 'relative of the husband' (as in s.498-A, /PC)
    - Connection of

        Respondent No.2 filed a complaint case against her

H                               648
       SUNITA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                 649


husband, and the appellant under Section 498A IPC. The         A
appellant filed an application for discharge, inter alia, on
the ground that respondent no.2 had not been examined
as a witness in the case. During the arguments on the
said application, the appellant contended that she could
not be made an accused under Section 498A IPC since            B
she was not a relative of respondent no.2's husband and
the allegations made against her did not make out a case
of cruelty under the aforesaid Section. However, the
Magistrate rejected the appellant's application for
discharge on the ground that there was prima facie             c
evidence for framing of charge against the accused,
including the appellant, under Section 498A IPc:
Aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court by way
of Criminal Revision. The High Court held that since the
appellant was living with the accused husband of the
                                                               0
respondent no.2, she must be deemed to have become
a family member of respondent no.2's husband for the
purpose of Section 498A IPC, and accordingly affirmed
the order of the Trial Court.

     In the instant appeal the question arising for            E
consideration was: whether the appellant became a
member of the family of respondent no.2's husband
merely because she was living with him in his house
allegedly as his wife.
                                                               F
    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1. From a reading of Section 498A, IPC, it is
clear that it is either the husband or the relative of a
husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty, who
could be charged under the said Section. Such provision        G
could not apply to a person who was not a relation of the
husband when the alleged offence is said to have been
committed. Section 498A IPC is clear and unambiguous
that only the husband or his relative could be proceeded
                                                               H
    650       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A agai.nst under the said Section for subjecting the wife to
  "cruelty", which has been specially defined in the said
  Section in the Explanation thereto. The High Court
  committed an error in bestowing upon the appellant the
  status of wife and, therefore, a member of the family of
B respondent no.2's husband. The doctrine of
  acknowledgement would not be available in the facts of
  this case. No doubt, there is direct allegation against the
  appellant of cruelty against the respondent No.2, but the
  same would enable the respondent No.2 to proceed
c against her husband under Section 498A IPC and also
  against the appellant under the different provisions of the
  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498A
  IPC. [Para 13) [654-F-G; 655-A-B]

      1.2. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and
D the cognizance taken against the appellant by the Sub-
  Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 498A IPC, is
  hereby quashed. [Para 14) [655-C]

          U. Suvetha v. State (2009) 6 SCC 757 - referred to.
E
                         Case Law Reference:
          (2009) 6 sec 757        referred to          Para 7

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
F   No. 1745 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2009 of the High
    Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRR No. 410 of 2007.

      · · Gaurav Agrawal for the Petitioner.
G
          ·Gopal Prasad, Mohan Pandey for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          A'LTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
       SUNITA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                      651
               [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order      A
dated 29th April, 2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Revision No.410 of 2007
dismissing the same and affirming the order of the Trial Court
rejecting the prayer of the Appellant for being discharged from
the case.                                                           B

      3. One Asha Rani Pal, the Respondent N<;>.2 herein, filed
a complaint case against her husband, Mukund Chandra
Pandit, and the Appellant herein, being Complaint Case
No.404 of 2005, before the Sub-Dlvisional Judicial Magistrate:;
Dumka, Jharkhand, under Section 498A IPC. The learried
                                                                    c
Magistrate by his order dated 6th February, 2006, took
cognizance against the Appellant and other accused and
issued process for the accused to appear before him on 5th
April, 2006. Pursuant to the said order, the Appellant appeared
before the learned Magistrate on 10th July, 2006, when the· D
prosecution examined two witnesses, namely, PW.1 Kanhai
Pal, father of the Respondent No.2 and PW.2 Mukti Pal. No
further evidence was led by the complainanURespondent No.2
and on 13th November, 2006, the learned Magistrate closed
the pre-charge evidence and posted the case for arguments E
on framing of charge.

      4. On 9th March, 2007, the Appellant filed an application
for discharge, inter alia, on the ground that the complainant had
not been examined as a witness in the case. During the              F
arguments on the said application, it was contended that the
Appellant could not be·made an accused under Section 498A
IPC since she was not a relative of Mukund Chandra Pandit
and that the allegations made against her did not make out a
case of cruelty under the aforesaid Section. However, by his
                                                                    G
order dated 9th March, 2007, the learned Magistrate rejected
the Appellant's application for discharge on the ground that
there was prima facie evidence for framing of charge against
the accused, including the Appellant, under Section 498A IPC.

    5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant moved the         H
    652       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by way of Criminal Revision
  No.410 of 2007. As indicated hereinabove, a learned Single
  Judge of the High Court by his order dated 29th April, 2009,
  dismissed the Revision Application on the ground that since
  the Appe!lant was living with the accused husband of the
B complainant, she must be deemed to have become a family
  member of Mukund Chandra Pandit for the purpose of Section
  498A IPC.

       6. The case of the Appellant before us is that the High
C Court erred in law in holding that the Appellant became a
  member of the family of Mukund Chandra Pandit merely
  because she was living with him in his house allegedly as his
  wife. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, appearing for the
  Appellant, contended that Section 498A IPC was very clear as
  to who could be charged under the said Section. For the sake
D of convenience, the said Section is reproduced hereinbelow :-

          "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
E         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-
F
          (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
G
          (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."
H
        SUNITA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                       653
                [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

     7. It will be seen from. the aforesaid provisions that it is      A
either the husband or the relative of a husband of a woman who
subjects her to cruelty, who could be charged under the said
Section. Such provision could not apply to. a person who was
not a relation of the husband when the alleged offence is said
to have been committed. It was contended that the Appellant            B
was in no way related to the husband and was not his wife as
held by the High Court so as to bring her within the ambit of
Section 498A IPC and the charge framed against her was,
accordingly, invalid and liable to be quashed. Reliance was
placed by Mr. Agrawal on the decision of this Court in U.              c
Suvetha v. State [(2009) 6 SCC 757], wherein the aforesaid
question was directly in issue. This Court took up for
consideration the question as to. the persons who could be
charged under Section 498A IPC-baving particular regard to
the phrase "relative of the husband"bccurring in the said              D
Section. This Court categorically held that neither a girlfriend
nor a concubine is a relative of the husband within the meaning
of Section 498A IPC, since they were not connected by blood
or marriage to the husband.
                                     '
      8. The other question which fell for determination was if a      E
husband was living with another woman besides his wife,
whether the same would amount to "cruelty" within the meaning
of Section 498A. It was held that if such other woman was not
connected to the husband by blood or marriage, the same
would not attract the provisions of Section 498A 1.P.C., although      F
it could be an act of cruelty for the purpose of judicial separation
or dissolution of marriage under the marriage laws; but could
not be stretched to amount to "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC.

     9. While construing the provisions of Section 498A IPC in         G
the given circumstances, this Court observed that Section 498A
being a penal provision deserved strict construction and by no
stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine
be a "relative", which status could be conferred either by blood
connection or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken
                                                                       H
    654      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A place, the question of one being relative of another would not
  arise.

                10. Mr. Agrawal urged that the High Court had
   misconstrued the provisions of Section 498A vis-a-vis the
B Appellant in relation to the   . said Section and the impugned order
   of the High Court was, therefore, liable to be set aside along
   with the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
   rejecting the Appellant's prayer for discharge from the complaint
   case filed by Asha Rani Pal.
    .....,,,.,.
c.              11. An attempt was made on behalf of the complainant,
   Asha Rani Pal, to justify the order passed by the learned
   Magistrate as also the High Court on the ground that the
   Appellant must be deemed to have acquired the status of wife
   of Mukund Chandra Pandit by her conduct and the fact that they
D had been living together as husband and wife.

        12. We have considered the submissions made on behalf
  of the Appellant and the complainant wife. It may be indicated
  that the husband Mukund Chandra Pandit has not been made
E a party to these proceedings. However, having regard to the
  view which we are taking, his presence is not necessary for
  disposing of the present appeal.

       13. Section 498A IPC, as extracted hereinabove, is clear
  and unambiguous that only the husband or his relative could be
F proceeded against under the said Section for subjecting the
  wife to "cruelty", which has been specially defined in the said
  Section in the exp:anation thereto. The question as to who would
  be a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498A
  has been considered in detail in U. Suvetha's case (supra). We
G are entirely in agreement with the views expressed in the said
  case and we agree with the submissions made on behalf of
  the Appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court
  committed an error in bestowing upon the Appellant the status
  of wife and, therefore, a member of Mukund Chandra Pandit's
H family. The doctrine of acknowledgement would not be available
         SUNITA JHA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                    655
                 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
in the facts of this case. No doubt, there is direct allegation     A
against the Appellant of cruelty against the Respondent No.2,
Asha Rani Pal, but as indicated in U. Suvetha's case (supra),
the same would enable the Respondent No.2 to proceed
against her husband under Section 498A l.P.C. and also
against the Appellant under the different provisions of the Hindu   B
Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section 498A l.P.C.

     14. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High
Court impugned in this Appeal is set aside and the cognizance       C
taken against the Appellant on 6th February, 2006, by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, under
Section 498A IPC, is hereby quashed.

B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.