Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Suman Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., has held that the complaint filed by the second wife against her husband and in laws under the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not maintainable.

What was the Background of Suman Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the complainant lodged a written complaint against the co-accused (Subhash Sharma) and the petitioners.
• The complainant alleged that the co-accused and the petitioner number 1 were already married and immediately after her marriage the petitioner and the co-accused started harassing her.
• Thereafter, she filed a written complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the co-accused and the petitioners.
• Challenging the complaint filed by the complainant, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court.
• During the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge finding conflict with the decision rendered in the matter Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) has referred the matter of the division bench of the High Court.
• The division bench held that there is no apparent conflict with the decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases and so the matter is listed before the single judge for deciding the petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the complaint lodged by second wife for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC would not be tenable.
• The Court further held that there was no apparent conflict with the decision rendered by the three judge’s bench of the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015).
  • In the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007), the Supreme Court held that when the marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC would not be sustainable.
  • In the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), the Supreme Court held that in the absence of definition of husband to specifically include such persons who contract marriages and cohabit with such woman in the purported exercise of their role as husband is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 498-A of IPC.
• Even if there is a conflict in the judgments of the Supreme Court of Benches of equal strength, then it is the earlier one which has to be followed and accordingly, in the instant case Shivcharan Lal Verma Case has to be followed.

What is Section 498-A of IPC?

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • 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
  • 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.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Case Laws:

• In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
• In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009), the Supreme Court held that for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time to the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC.