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
                                                                         2
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
                                                                       3
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.
                                                             4
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
                                                               5
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
                                                                    6
      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
                                                                    7
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.                                                                 8
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-
`-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.
                                                                   9
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
                                                                         1
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
SOURCE http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp