Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court recently observed that quarrels between husband and wife or the demand for divorce by the husband or his relatives do not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, while hearing the petition (Crl.Pet./808/2023), added that the word “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498(A) IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498(A), as it may be different from other statutory provisions.
With this, the bench quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings initiated by the woman against her husband and her husband’s relatives under Sections 498(A) IPC r/w Section 67 IT Act. The HC bench allowed the plea under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The case of the woman (Respondent No. 2) is that she got married to petitioner No. 1 in February 2012, and soon after marriage, her husband, her parents-in-law and her sister-in-law mentally tortured her.
Her specific claim was that the accused persons used to repeatedly tell her that she was not his choice and he did not want to continue his married life with her, putting pressure upon her to divorce her husband. She alleged that she developed multiple ailments due to their behaviour.
She also alleged in her complaint that she had received multiple voice calls from Rupesh, a domestic servant employed by the petitioners, during which he made sexual propositions and used vulgar language. It was her contention that the petitioners themselves sent the voice notes, as Rupesh was not proficient in using mobile phones.
After conducting an investigation in the case, the police filed the charge sheet under Sections 498(A) IPC read with Section 67 of the IT Act against the present petitioners.
In July 2023, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, took cognizance of the offences against all the petitioners. The husband and his relatives challenged the said proceedings and moved the HC.
During the hearing, senior counsel Bhaskar Dutta, appearing for the petitioners, strongly put forward the argument that Section 498(A) IPC was inserted into the Code to prevent abuse of married women for dowry demands, and since there is no allegation in the instant case that dowry was ever demanded, the provision was not attracted.
Regarding Section 67 of the IT Act, Dutta further submitted that the provision wasn’t attracted against the petitioners since the woman had claimed in the FIR itself that the domestic servant had sent those materials to her mobile phone and not the present petitioners.
On the other hand, Advocate G.N. Sahewalla, appearing for the respondent no. 2, submitted that she deserved to be given an opportunity to prove her case in the trial court, and thus, he prayed for dismissing the quashing plea.
Examining the facts of the case as well as the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the Bench noted that in the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2, there were no allegations that the petitioners ever demanded dowry from her.
The bench noted that she had only claimed that her husband did not like her and that his family members were putting pressure upon her to divorce.
Insofar as the allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act is concerned, the bench noted that the alleged obscene materials came from the mobile phone of Rupesh, but the police did not file the charge sheet against Rupesh.
In light of the facts, the bench, noting that there is no allegation of demand of dowry and that allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act was based on suspicion, allowed the plea based on the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed the chargesheet and the entire proceedings in respect of PRC Case No.946/2023 arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No.20/2021 pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia.
Also read: Wife Entitled to Enjoy Matrimonial Amenities Pending Divorce: Supreme Court
Also Watch: