1 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2288 OF 2010 Atul Mohan Bhavsar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Sachin U.Dhakepalkar for Applicant Mr.A.S. Shitole -APP for State Mrs.Neha A. Jadhav for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition, which is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Applicant has prayed that the FIR dated 13.11.2009 filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code may be quashed qua the Applicant. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 got married with one Kalpesh Gajanan Ganpule and, thereafter she lodged this complaint 2 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) alleging that her husband and her in-laws and the present Applicant, who is the friend of her husband, had committed an offence under sections 498-A, 406 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant that the provisions of section 498A are not attracted to the present case in respect of a person, who is not the husband or blood relative of the husband. He submitted that the Applicant admittedly, has been descried in the complaint as the friend of the husband. In support of the said submission, he has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2656 (S.C.). He further submitted that there is not a single averment in complaint alleging that the Applicant had committed offece punishable under section 406. It is submitted that admittedly, even otherwise, there is no entrustment of property to the Applicant. 5. The learned APP for the State has invited my attention to the FIR and also the chargesheet. He submitted that even if the provisions of section 498- A are not attracted, offence under section 406 r/w. 34 3 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) of the IPC was made out. The said submissions were adopted by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant. 6. So far as the first submission is concerned, in my view, the ratio of the Apex Court will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. “498-A. 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 4 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 7. Perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly reveals that the complaint under section 498-A can only be filed against the husband and the relatives of the husband. Its a very well settled position in law that offences under the Indian Penal code have to be strictly construed since it is a penal provision and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given the statute, the said statute cannot be construed in any other manner. The observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 7 of the said judgment is as under. “7. Shri U.U.Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in U.Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr. [(2009) 6 SCC 757], it was specifically held that in order to be covered under Section 498A, IPC once has to be a 'relative' of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. He pointed out 5 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) that the present appellant was not in any manner a 'relative' as referred to in Section 498A, IPC and, therefore, there is no question of any allegation against her in respect of the ill-treatment of the complainant. The Court in this case examined the ingredients of Section 498A, IPC and noting the specific language of the Section and the Explanation thereof came to the conclusion that the word 'relative' would not include a paramour or concubine or so. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word 'relative' and further relying on R.Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 3rd Edition, the Court went on to hold that Section 498A, IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T.Ashok Pai v.CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162]. A reference was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of 6 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) M.P. [(200) 15 SCC 369]. After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word 'relative' in Section 498A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.” 8. It is an admitted position that in the complaint, the Applicant has been referred to as a friend of the husband. Under these circumstances, therefore, the provisions of 498A cannot be applied to the Applicant, who is not the relative of the husband. 9. So far as the second contention is concerned, I have perused the FIR. There is no allegation made by the Complainant in the entire complaint about entrustment of any amount to the Applicant. The only allegation is that the husband on the instigation of his father and the present Applicant had demanded amount for the purpose of purchasing a room. 10. That being the position, even if the averments made in the complaint are accepted at its face value, the provisions of 406 r/w. 34 are not attracted in the present case. 7 (crim appln 2288 of 2010) 11. Under these circumstances, the application will have to be allowed. The complaint filed by the Complainant against the Applicant vide FIR No. I-460 of 2009 registed with Naupada Police Station, Thane be quashed and set aside. 12. Application is allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)