Bench: S N Dhingra
Smt. Neera Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Ors. on 21/2/2007
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing/settingaside order dated 25th April, 2006 passed by, Additional Sessions Judge wherebythe learned ASJ observed that no charge was made out against two minor girlsnamely Kamlesh and Mamta Rani, sister in laws of the complainant (husband’ssisters) under Section 498A of the IPC.
2. A perusal of the FIR would show that the allegations against the twominor girls are that on the directions of their mother they stopped doinghousehold work and they used to tell her “bhabhi you have not brought gold itemsfor us, how we will give reply to our friends”. Complainant after narrating The words used by respondent stated that it had become clear to her that her in -laws were greedy and they were making demands of gold ring, gold chain etc. fromher.
3. Considering the allegations made by complainant in her statement to The police and in the FIR, the learned ASJ observed that the ingredients under section 498A of the IPC were not made out against the minor girls Kamlesh andMamta. The complainant had also not stated as to on which date such remarks asalleged were made by the two girls. There were no allegations of eitherphysical or mental torture by these two girls and, therefore, he considered thatno case was made out against the two minor girls under Section 498A of the IPC.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the learned ASJ has failed toappreciate that there were sufficient allegations in the complainant/FIR toconstitute offences under Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498A IPC reads asunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative or the husband of a woman, subjectssuch woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.-Fro the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drivethe woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb orhealth (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view tocoercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for anyproperty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any personrelated to meet such demand.]
5. Cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC must meet the following requirements:
1. There should be harassment of the woman.
2. Harassment should be with a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet the unlawful demand of a property or valuables security.
3. The harassment may be even where on account of failure by woman or any personrelated to her to meet any such demand earlier made.
6. The cruelty perpetuated on a woman may be physical or mental. However,not doing household work by minor girls either of their own or at the instanceof their mother, as alleged, cannot be stated to be cruelty to the woman or theutterances as assigned to these two minor girls that she had not brought anygold item for them would amount to harassment being made by minor girls for thepurpose of coercing her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demands.
7. Now-a-days, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against every member of the family of the husband, involving everybody under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC by making one or the other allegations. Hence, it has become very necessary for the Courts to carefullys crutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute the offence and meet the requirements of law at least prima facie. The learned ASJ scrutinized the entire FIR and the statement of complainant and there after observed that no case was made out against these two minor girls. I have also gone through the record and find that except above allegations madeby the complainant, no other role was assigned to these two minor girls(respondents).
8. In view of the my foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned ASJ. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid ofmerits.
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing/settingaside order dated 25th April, 2006 passed by, Additional Sessions Judge wherebythe learned ASJ observed that no charge was made out against two minor girlsnamely Kamlesh and Mamta Rani, sister in laws of the complainant (husband’ssisters) under Section 498A of the IPC.
2. A perusal of the FIR would show that the allegations against the twominor girls are that on the directions of their mother they stopped doinghousehold work and they used to tell her “bhabhi you have not brought gold itemsfor us, how we will give reply to our friends”. Complainant after narrating The words used by respondent stated that it had become clear to her that her in -laws were greedy and they were making demands of gold ring, gold chain etc. fromher.
3. Considering the allegations made by complainant in her statement to The police and in the FIR, the learned ASJ observed that the ingredients under section 498A of the IPC were not made out against the minor girls Kamlesh andMamta. The complainant had also not stated as to on which date such remarks asalleged were made by the two girls. There were no allegations of eitherphysical or mental torture by these two girls and, therefore, he considered thatno case was made out against the two minor girls under Section 498A of the IPC.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the learned ASJ has failed toappreciate that there were sufficient allegations in the complainant/FIR toconstitute offences under Section 498A of the IPC. Section 498A IPC reads asunder:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative or the husband of a woman, subjectssuch woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.-Fro the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drivethe woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb orhealth (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view tocoercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for anyproperty or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any personrelated to meet such demand.]
5. Cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the IPC must meet the following requirements:
1. There should be harassment of the woman.
2. Harassment should be with a view to coercing her or any person related to herto meet the unlawful demand of a property or valuables security.
3. The harassment may be even where on account of failure by woman or any personrelated to her to meet any such demand earlier made.
6. The cruelty perpetuated on a woman may be physical or mental. However,not doing household work by minor girls either of their own or at the instanceof their mother, as alleged, cannot be stated to be cruelty to the woman or theutterances as assigned to these two minor girls that she had not brought anygold item for them would amount to harassment being made by minor girls for thepurpose of coercing her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demands.
7. Now-a-days, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against every member of the family of the husband, involving everybody under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC by making one or the other allegations. Hence, it has become very necessary for the Courts to carefullys crutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute the offence and meet the requirements of law at least prima facie. The learned ASJ scrutinized the entire FIR and the statement of complainant and there after observed that no case was made out against these two minor girls. I have also gone through the record and find that except above allegations madeby the complainant, no other role was assigned to these two minor girls(respondents).
8. In view of the my foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned ASJ. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid ofmerits.
No comments:
Post a Comment