Source – The Indian Express

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Delhi, has held that the object of the Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is to deter dowry deaths of women by husband or kin, and the provision should not be used as a device against relatives “without reason”.

Background

• The petitioner had filed two petitions before the Delhi HC against the orders which framed charges against the man and his family under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC, after his wife filed a complaint against him and his family.
• The High Court quashed the charges framed against the family of the petitioner and did not interfere with the charges framed against the petitioner (husband).

Court’s Observations

• A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, that in order to make out a case under Section 498A IPC the “conduct of the accused has to be such that he or she willfully drives a woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury, (be it mental or physical). In the alternative, there has to be harassment to the woman with an intent to coerce her to meet unlawful demands, thereby committing cruelty”.
• The Court further added that the allegations so raised are vague, unspecific and bald, lacking any particular details, including but not limited to date, place or time. It appears that the complainant has merely roped in the family of the husband.

Legal Provisions

Section 498A, IPC

• 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 in 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.
• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary ingredients 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.

Section 406, IPC

• Section 406 IPC states the punishment for committing criminal breach of trust.
• The section states that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• The offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of IPC.
  • This section states that, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, of another or have some kind of authority over the property of another, and if that person dishonestly misappropriates or converts the property for his own use, the person is said to commit the offence of criminal breach of trust.
• Criminal breach of trust is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Section 34, IPC

• Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Under the ambit of this section, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held responsible by virtue of his or her participation in the criminal act.
• The following are the major ingredients of this section:
  • A criminal act must be done by several persons.
  • There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
  • Participation of all the persons is necessary in the commission of the common intention.
• In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993), it was held that it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence as well.