HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5949 & 6549 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.668 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. Crl.P.No.6549 of 2008 is filed by Accused No.1, and Crl.P.No.5949 of 2008 is filed by Accused Nos.2 and 3, in the aforesaid C.C. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Neredmet Police Station, Cyberabad, stating that A-1 is her husband and their marriage was solemnized on 27.08.2004 at Veeranjaneya Swamy temple, Secunderabad. At the time of marriage, she was employed and her husband was also employed as Software Engineer at Hyderabad. It is alleged that their marriage was not consummated as her husband was not fit for marital life, but the said fact was deliberately suppressed by A-1 and all the accused and the marriage was performed, and that after the marriage, all the accused were treating the petitioner cruelly and she was also assaulted several times by her husband. It is alleged that as and when, she requested her husband and his parents for his medical examination, they used to abuse and ill-treat her, due to which, she has suffered physically and mentally. Unable to bear the ill-treatment and harassment meted out in the hands of petitioners/accused, she left the company of her husband on 19.01.2008, and that thereafter, A-1 left to Dubai in connection with job. On the aforesaid complaint, a case in Crime No.231 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. After the complaint was investigated into, a final report was filed before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, pursuant to which, it is numbered as C.C.No.668 of 2008. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners/accused that except the general allegations of cruelty, no case is made out against the petitioners, so as to subject them to trial for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. He contended that even the contents of the charge sheet do not attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakson Belthissor V. State of Kerala and another[1]. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant that the allegations levelled against the accused in the complaint filed by the complainant and also the final report filed in C.C.No.668 of 2008, do constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners/accused, and as such, there are no grounds to entertain this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Neelaveni V. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Ors[2] and also the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in T.V.Manohar Vs. State of A.P.[3] In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question which requires to be considered in these petitions is, even if the contents of the complaint as well as the final report are taken as it is, whether any case is made out against the petitioners/accused so as to allow trial against them for the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC. The offence under Section 498-A IPC is covered by Chapter-XX of IPC. It is apt to refer to explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, which reads as under : “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.” From a perusal of explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, it is clear that unless the cruelty alleged is of the willful conduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, it will not attract the offence under the said Section. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, I have perused the complaint and also the final report filed by the Police. In the final report and complaint, it is merely alleged that there was an assault on the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that her husband is not fit for marital life and whenever she has requested A-1 to A-3 for medical examination of A-1, they used to abuse and ill-treat her physically and mentally. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Shakson Belthissor (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 20 to 22, held as under: - “20…..Section 498A of the IPC reads as follows: “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 account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand”. 21. In the light of the aforesaid language used in the Section, the provision would be applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects the said woman to cruelty. When the ingredients of the aforesaid Section are present in a particular case, in that event the person concerned against whom the offence is alleged would be tried in accordance with law in a trial instituted against him and if found guilty the accused would be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The said section contains an explanation, which defines "cruelty" as understood under Section 498A IPC. In order to understand the meaning of the expression `cruelty' as envisaged under Section 498A, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of woman which is of such a nature as 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. 22. When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case”. In the instant case, if the contents of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the final report filed by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are looked into, there is no allegation of any such willful conduct on the part of any of the accused so as to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury. In that view of the matter, the above judgment supports the case of the petitioners in this case. Coming to the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the case of K.Neelaveni (2 supra), having regard to the factual situation of the said case, whether such facts do constitute an offence under Section 476 IPC, was considered. While accepting the facts narrated in the First Information Report constituting the offences under Sections 406 and 494 IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the truthfulness or otherwise of the report has to be gone into at the stage of trial. In that view of the matter, this judgment would not render any support to the respondents. In T.V.Manohar’s case (3 supra), this Court has observed that the Courts have to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., very carefully. In the said case, when there was a dispute with regard to the marriage itself, a learned single Judge of this Court has held that whether the marriage was solemnized between the parties or not, is a matter to be gone into during the trial, but not at the stage while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is now fairly well settled that if the contents of the complaint and the final report taken as it is, do not attract any of the offences alleged against the accused, then subjecting such accused to trial, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In the case on hand also, as no case is made out so as to proceed with trial for the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC, directing the petitioners to undergo trial, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, which will result in miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any contents attracting explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC, this Court is of the view that there is no factual basis to prosecute the petitioners/accused for the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC, and hence, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.668 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th November 2011 DR/ajr [1] (2009) 14 SCC 466 [2] AIR 2010 SC 3191 [3] 2010-ALT(Cri)-2-325