REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1745 OF 2010

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) No.4758 of 2009)

SUNITA JHA               … APPELLANT    

   Vs.

STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment  

and  order  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.  

3. One  Asha  Rani  Pal,  the  Respondent  No.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-Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Dumka, Jharkhand, under Section 498A IPC.  The  

learned  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  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  complainant/Respondent  

2

No.2  and  on  13th November,  2006,  the  learned  

Magistrate  closed  the  pre-charge  evidence  and  

posted  the  case  for  arguments  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 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  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.

3

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant  

moved the 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  Appellant  was  living  with  the  

accused husband of the 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 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  

4

said Section.  For the sake 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 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  

5

account of failure by her or any person  related to her to meet such demand.”

7. It will be seen from the aforesaid provisions  

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 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 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.  

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  

6

498A IPC having particular regard to the phrase  

“relative of the husband” occurring in the said  

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 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 I.P.C., although 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.

7

9. While  construing  the  provisions  of  Section  

498A IPC in 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  

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-

à-vis  the  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.

8

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 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 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 proceeded  

against under the said Section for subjecting the  

wife  to  “cruelty”,  which  has  been  specially  

9

defined in the said Section in the explanation  

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  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  

family. 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,  

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 I.P.C. and also against the  

Appellant under the different provisions of the  

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but not under Section  

1

498A I.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 taken  

against the Appellant on 6th February, 2006, by  

the  learned  Sub-Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Dumka, under Section 498A IPC, is hereby quashed.  

…………………………………………J.                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J.                              (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi Dated: 13.09.2010

1