IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009/4TH KARTHIKA, 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3512 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------- CP.16/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I,PALAKKAD PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 2 TO 4: -------------------------------- 1. RUGMANI AMMA, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, DOOR NO.30, VASAVI NAGAR HUDCO., HOSUR, DHARMAPURI (DT.) TAMILNADU. 2. RAGHAVENDRAN, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, (JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KSRTC, KARNATAKA) DOOR NO.30, VASAVI NAGAR, HUDCO HOSUR, DHARMAPURI (DT), TAMILNADU. 3. USHA, W/O.BABURAJ, (COMPANY ASSISTANT, DAIRY PRODUCTS LTD, HOSUR), DOOR NO.30 VASAVI NAGAR, HUDCO, HOSUR DHARMAPURI (DT), TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.SARVOTHAMAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. N.SREEJA, W/O.K.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, DOOR NO.7/245, MARUTHA ROAD, LENIN NAGAR KADAYANKODU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O., KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, TO BE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This petition is filed to quash Annexure-V charge sheet filed against petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the crime for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 312 read with 34 IPC. 2. As per the charge sheet the first respondent herein who is the defacto complaint married the first accused and she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and the near relatives of her husband who are accused Nos.2 to 4, their mother-in-law, father- in-law and sister-in-law respectively. While the first respondent was residing in the husband's house after the marriage, accused Nos.2 to 4 used to make demands for money and gold ornaments and they harassed her physically and mentally. When she was residing with the first accused in Punjab in his military quarters, he had manhandled and also caused miscarriage on compulsion and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are the near relatives of defacto complainant's husband. They had no role in the miscarriage caused to her. As per the Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 2 allegations in the complaint, the miscarriage was caused on the husband's military quarters while the defacto complainant was residing with him. But in the military quarters, petitioners were not residing. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, as per the allegations in the complaint petitioners used to compel her to do the entire work in the house and accused failed to give food to her and she was given only stale food on most of the days. These allegations will not come under the cruelty which is explained in Section 498A IPC, it is submitted. He also cited a decision in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and antoher v. Monica(2009(3) Kerala Series 455) argued that to attract Sec.498A IPC they must be willful conduct on the part of the accused which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. But the allegations made against petitioners are not sufficient to constitute “cruelty” under Section 498A IPC, it s argued. The charge sheet may be quashed, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that as per the allegations in the complaint the first respondent was put to starvation. She was not given food on many days and this is sufficient to cause danger to her life and as per Section 498A, it is Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 3 sufficient if the willful conduct of the accused is likely to endanger the life or health of the victim. If a person is put to starvation it is likely that even her life will be at risk. Therefore, Section 498A is clearly attracted, it is submitted. According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is not necessary that a woman should be driven to commit suicide by the conduct of the accused but it is sufficient if such conduct is “likely” to endanger the life of the victim for attracting Section 498A IPC. 6. On hearing both sides, and on going through the judgment cited above it appears that the Supreme Court has placed reliance upon a decision reported in Noorjahan v. State rep. by D.S.P [(2008)11 SCC 55] wherein it is held as follows:- “Consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical, of the woman is required to be established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC”. 7. It is true that in Noorjahan's case (2008)11 SCC 55, the Supreme Court held that it is necessary that the cruelty must be of such a nature to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause injury etc. to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC. As far as explanation 498A (a) is concerned this is true and the Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 4 dictum will be applicable to cases following under Explanation (a) to Section 498A IPC. As per Explanation (a), “any willful conduct of the accused which is of such a nature as is likely to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman can be treated as cruelty”. 8. But there is another explanation also under Sec.498A IPC. It reads as follows: (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 account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. 9. A reading of Section 498A, particularly the explanation would show that cruelty will be constituted if the accused is guilty of making such acts which are specifically stated in (a) or (b) to the explanation. The first part relates to the willful conduct and nature of such conduct which can drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical. But in clause (b) of explanation to Section 498A cruelty means harassment of a woman. Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 5 10. If an accused is guilty of harassment with a view to coercing woman or any person guilty to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or such harassment is on account of failure by the woman or any person related to her to meet such demand the accused can be said to have subjected to such woman to cruelty. Therefore, on a reading of Section 498A and explanation (a) and (b), it is clear that cruelty means either willful conduct or harassment which are specifically stated in the explanation. It can be either a willful conduct or harassment. 11. It is only if the accused is guilty of any willful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide etc., explanation (a) is attracted whereas in explanation (b) such a requirement is not there. It is not necessary to establish offence under Section 498A though the husband or his relatives are guilty of any willful conduct which is of the nature which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. It is sufficient if the complainant establishes that the accused were guilty of harassing the victim with a view to coerce her or any person guilty to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property etc. Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 6 12. It is also sufficient if the harassment is on account of failure on the part of the victim or any person guilty to her to meet any unlawful demand made by the accused. Therefore, it is not necessary that in all cases, the complainant should establish that the conduct of the accused was such that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause her grievous injury or endanger her life or health either physical or mental. Even in cases where a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or with a view to meet an unlawful demand for any property or if she is harassed on account of her failure to meet such demand that would suffice to attract Section 498A IPC. 13. 'Harass' means to annoy or worry by putting pressure on a person or saying or doing unpleasant things to a person. 'Harassment' can be by words, context or action that being directed at a specific person, annoy, alarms or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose. The allegations would attract harassment if not the willful conduct under clause (b) of explanation to Section 498A IPC. 14. Harassment and the willful conduct stated in clause (a) and (b) of the explanation are totally different. While explanation Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 7 (a) takes in a very serious willful conduct on the part of the accused, which is of such a nature which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or which is likely to a very serious injuries to her health or life, such willful conduct is not necessary to attract offence under Section 498A IPC as per explanation given in clause (b) in Section 498A IPC. Causing substantial emotional distress in a person without serving any legitimate purpose would attract harassment. 15. The conduct of the accused need not be as serious as stated in sub clause (a) to explanation but even a mere harassment will attract offence under Section 498A IPC. If such harassment is for the reason stated in sub clause (b) to explanation in Section 498A IPC. Though the willful conduct as stated in clause (a) of explanation to Section 498A would attract offence under Section 498A IPC, the harassment stated in clause (b) would also be sufficient to establish an offence under Section 498A IPC. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to quash such charge sheet. 16. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that question of jurisdiction is also raised. According to him, the trial court does not get territorial jurisdiction in the light of the allegations made Crl.M.C.No.3512 of 2007 8 in the complaint. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there are allegations in the complaint which will show that the harassment continued even after the defacto complainant went to her house, which is under the jurisdiction of the trial court and the accused were committing the offences in furtherance of common intention. 17. In the light of these submissions, I have gone through the complaint and I find force in the arguments made by learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to quash the complaint even on ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that petitioners are yet at liberty to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court, if they are so advised in which event trial court shall consider the same untrammelled by the observations, if any, made in this order on merit of this case. This order will also be not stand in the way of petitioners seeking their lawful remedy. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE cms