Mahalakshmi vs State of Karnataka

CITATION	Criminal Appeal No.494/2023
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	30 November 2023
COURT	Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Mahalakshmi & Ors.
RESPONDENT	The State of Karnataka & Anr.
BENCH	J. Sanjiv Khanna and J. S.V.N. Bhatti

INTRODUCTION

In this case the honourable Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings related to section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sections 498 A and 506 of IPC dealing with cruelty against women by the husband and relatives of husband and punishment for criminal intimidation respectively.

The bench also highlighted that a single unimportant incident by husband’s relative lacking the evidence of interference in the marriage does not amount to cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that if in the future trial court gets any reasonable evidence then the court can proceed with the case accordingly.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The accused number 1 Sarvan Kumar and the respondent number 2 Rekha Bhaskaran tied knot on 29^th June 2015.
2. Rekha filed a written complaint in response to which on 26th November 2016 FIR was lodged at the Halasurgate Police Station located in the Bangalore city of Karnataka under section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sections 498 A and 506 of IPC, 1860. Leading to which a charge sheet was filed on 20^th July 2017.
3. On the basis of complaint, the trial court summoned the appellants:

accused number 1- Sarvan Kumar

accused number 2-Surendra Prasad (father-in-law)

accused number 3-Malathi(mother-in-law)

4. In order to rescind the chargesheet, the appellant has filed a petition under section 482 of the CrPC.
5.  The said petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant number 1 (Mahalakshmi) sister of the accused no. 1 got married in 2013 and since then she had been living with her husband in Canada.
6. In the complaint made by the respondent no.2 she had alleged that in 2016 Mahalakshmi has commented on her appearance and used certain bad words for her and not only this but she had also thrown her belongings in the dustbin.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether a single minor event by the husband’s relative is sufficient enough to lodge a complaint under section 498 A of IPC.
2. Absence of specific details and valid evidences was in question.
3. Can people living separately, away from the matrimonial home be made part of the complaint under section 498A of IPC.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. The appellant claimed that the complaint was made on false and incorrect grounds.
2. She was living and working in Canada. In March 2016 she came to India nearly for twenty days to attend her friend’s wedding in Mysore and in September 2016 for twelve days as her father accused no. 2 was operated and hospitalized for two to three weeks under critical care.
3. Appellant no. 2,3 and 4 were accused 2 and 3 are cousins and accused 4 is the wife of accused no.3 were living separately.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent claimed that the appellant no. 1 abused her and used foul language demeaning her.
2. She also alleged that on February 2016 appellant no.1 commented on her physical appearance.
3. On September 2016 as per the respondent the appellant threw her belongings in the dustbin.

JUDGEMENT

After considering the chargesheet, court was of the view that the charges frame was vague and general.

When it can not be justified by the evidence that the marital life of the complainant was being hampered, a mere incident will not make a person liable to be charged under 498 A of IPC.

Court held that the appellants were not residing in the marital home even some reside outside India so absence of specific details does not amount to cruelty.

The criminal proceedings against the appellant were quashed but the court also stated if in the future evidences becomes available then the trial court can further proceed with the case.

ANALYSIS

Cases involving section 498 A of IPC should hold strong material evidences as charges are serious in nature and mere petty events and vague facts cannot be considered as a reason for invoking it.

The accused in this case the relative of the husband can be made liable for cruelty only when he interferes in the married life of the complainant.

CONCLUSION

Hon’ble Supreme Court after carefully considering the chargesheet and understanding gravity of the case ordered that the trial can proceed further in accordance with section 319 Cr.P.C if any relevant evidence is found with this the hon’ble court also granted permission to add defendants those who are not initially charged in the case in future if required.

REFERENCES

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/
2. https://www.livelaw.in/

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.