IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2001 of 2009() ----------------------------------- C.C. NO.241/2009 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD/ ............... PETITIONER(S): 4TH ACCUSED ------------------------ ABDUL KHADER, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. EBRAHIM, RESIDING AT PALLIKKAL, THALANGARA VILLAGE PO, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.M. ASOKAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. FOUSIYA D/O.K.A.USMAN AND W/O. RAFEEQ KOLIYAD, KUTHIRAKOD,MUDHIYAKAL, PALAKUNNU, PALLIKKERE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALK, P.O.BEKAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON 15/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2001 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.241 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod quashed. 2. Petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C.241 of 2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. The proceedings originated on a private complaint filed by the first respondent, which was taken on file by the Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 354, 498A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the complainant, on 19.9.2005 she married the first accused in the case namely Rafeeq Koliyad. The second accused is the mother of the first accused and the third accused is the married off sister of Crl.M.C.2001/2009. 2 the first accused. The fourth accused is the husband of the daughter of the sister of the mother of the first accused. The allegation was that the complainant was being harassed, tortured and treated cruelly demanding more dowry. It is also claimed that she was driven out of the house on 20.8.2008. The allegation against the fourth accused, who is the petitioner herein, is that he tried to outrage her modesty. 4. According to the petitioner, the allegations are totally false and made without any basis. He would point out that unable to put up with the attitude of the complainant, the first accused in the case, who is her husband, had moved the Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights as O.P.266 of 2008. The complaint was laid as a counter blast to the said case. He denied all the allegations against him. It is pointed out that there are no grounds made out to continue the proceedings as against him. Crl.M.C.2001/2009. 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in order to attract Section 498A of Cr.P.C.., the person has to be a relative of the husband. According to the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, he could be treated as a relative of the husband as understood in the legal parlance. In support of his claim, he relied on the decision reported in Suvetha v. Inspector of Police (2009 (2) KLT 686) and Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (ILR 2009 (3) Kerala 455). According to the learned counsel, may be that the petitioner is distantly related to the husband of the complainant. But that may not be sufficient in law to bring him within the ambit of Section 498A. Section 498A contemplates close relatives and not any relative. It is therefore prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. 6. It must be said that there is some substance in the above contention. In Suvetha's case, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held as follows: Crl.M.C.2001/2009. 4 “Relationship of the appellant with the husband of the first informant, is said to have been existing from before the marriage. Indisputably they lived separately. For all intent and purport the husband was also living at a separate place. The purported torture is said to have been inflicted by the husband upon the first informant either at her in-law's place or at her parents' place. There is no allegation that appellant had any role to play in that regard. By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.” 7. In the decision reported in Bhaskar Lal Sharma's case the question was not actually regarding the relationship, but regarding the question whether the particular act constitutes cruelty. Crl.M.C.2001/2009. 5 8. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that even assuming that the petitioner may not fall within the ambit of relative contemplated under Section 498A, there are allegations which show that he had committed the acts which would attract Section 354. It was also pointed out that he has the freedom to urge all these grounds before the court below and seek appropriate orders. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that the petitioner could be taken out of the ambit of the word 'relative' occurring in Section 498A, that may not be of any help to him at this stage. The complaint against him is that he had tried to outrage her modesty and he had been actively conniving and aiding others in harassing, humiliating and torturing her demanding more dowry. Whether these allegations are true or not is a matter to be determined at the time of trial of the case. A reading of the complaint would show that all these persons were hand in glove in harassing the complainant. Crl.M.C.2001/2009. 6 Under these circumstances, merely because the petitioner may not fall within the ambit of relative as occurring in Section 498A of IPC, it may not be of much assistance to him in this case. This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.