Recently, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed a criminal case brought up by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The case was filed under Sections 498-A, 509, 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC.
The husband and in-laws pleaded that the case was filed beyond the period of limitation as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and must be dismissed. On the other hand, the woman contended that the husband and in-laws have failed to take up responsibility for their child’s treatment, thus committing an offence of cruelty and criminal intimidation.
The husband and wife got married in 2011. Later, the wife stated that for obtaining money from her parents, her husband and in-laws used to ill-treat as well as harass her. It was in 2015, a son was born to the couple and soon after this the wife alleged that she was sent back to her parent’s home and the husband and in-laws never bothered to ask about the welfare of the child. No financial assistance was provided by them to the women even during the medical treatment of their child in 2018. Thus, the women filed a case against them under the above-mentioned sections.
Additional Junior Civil Judge Narasaraopet took notice of the case for offences under Sections 498-A, 509, 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC.
After hearing both sides, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that he is not able to find out any recorded reason as to why the offence under Section 354 has been recognized when the investigation officer had already dropped out the same. Moreover, he also asked why Section 509 has not been recognized when the same was included by the investigation officer in the charge sheet.
The honourable Justice stated, “Given the clear non-application of mind, this Court would have to set aside the said order of cognizance. However, setting aside the order of cognizance would only result in a remand of the case to the Magistrate and the issues raised by the petitioners would remain unanswered…”
He further held that “The allegations made against the petitioner, for neglect and refusal to take up responsibility for the treatment of the child of the de facto complainant would not fall under either of these provisions.”
Moreover, he held that Sections 498-A, 509 or 506 of IPC cannot be included as they were filed after the limitation period. The Court also took into question whether the allegations of harassment that the wife had imposed can lead to an extension of the limitation period or not. Besides this, the Court held that actions of neglect and refusal to take responsibility for his child’s treatment will not fall under the ambit of Sections 498-A, 509 or 506 of IPC.
Eventually, the Court referred to the case of Kamlesh Kalra vs Shilpika Kalra & Ors in which it was held by the apex court that “a complaint filed more than three years after separation of the couple would have to be held to be barred by limitation”.
The High Court held that the refusal to take responsibility for their child’s treatment or neglecting the child cannot establish that the husband and in-laws are guilty of cruelty as per Section 498-A or criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Consequently, the criminal petition was allowed and the case on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge Narasaraopet was quashed. The name of the respective case is GMR v. Smt. GS. Advocate Raja Reddy Koneti presented the case of the petitioners while Advocate T.V. Sridevi represented the complainant in the case.
Written by Sonakshi Misra, 2nd year (4th semester) B.A.LL.B. Hons. student at Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur.
