Ram Narayan Shakya and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J.—By filing this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashment of the FIR with whole investigation conducted by the police on the report lodged by complainant Suresh Singh Kushwaha which was registered against them at Crime No. 682/11 by P.S. Janakgang for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 511 of I.P.C. read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The relevant facts for deciding the case are that on 24th April 2011, the engagement ceremony of Miss Nitu daughter of complainant with Rahul Shakya (petitioner No.3), son of accused Ram Narayan Shakya and Smt. Pramod Kumari (petitioners No. 1 and 2) was celebrated at Gwalior. In ring ceremony, the date of marriage as 21st November 2011 was also declared. It is stated that in the said ceremony, Rs. One lac and valuable gifts and cloths were offered to the bridegroom and his father and other relatives. It was also settled that the rest amount of Rs. Two lacs and other items will be offered at the time of marriage. Just before few days of marriage, accused-petitioner No.1 Ram Narayan illegally raised demand of Rs. Five lacs for expenses to be borne for functions of marriage of his son with 10 Tolas of gold, one motorcycle, one laptop computer and one room air conditioner to father of bride. When he expressed his inability to satisfy his illegal demand on marriage, breaking the relationship before marriage the proposed marriage on the settled date was also cancelled. The gifts and cash money of Rs. One lac, which were gifted to bridegroom and his relations were not returned back to the complainant. Consequently, upon written complaint, the FIR was lodged at Police Station against the husband and relatives from his side in which investigation is reported to be in progress.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that no essential ingredient for establishing the offence u/s 498A of I.P.C. does exist in the case at hand as after ceremony of engagement, the matrimonial relationship as husband and wife can not be said to be in existence, which is possible only after solemnization of the marriage. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no offence punishable u/s 498A of I.P.C. is made out from the contents of the FIR. Accordingly, it is prayed that since no cognizable offence against the petitioners appears, the FIR and the investigation initiated pursuant thereto against the accused are liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State assisted with learned counsel for the complainant supported the FIR and contended that from the contents thereof other offence like Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out and therefore the petition deserves to dismissal.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Also perused the petition and other documents filed with the petition and the law applicable to the case.

Before considering the rival submissions of the parties it would be appropriate to go by the relevant provision of law, which is reproduced below:

498-A Husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband of a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section ''cruelty'' means

(a) any willful conduct which is such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life 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 to meet demand.

The essential ingredient of the offence u/s 498A of I.P.C. are as follows :

(1)A woman was married;

(2)She was subjected to cruelty;

(3)Such cruelty consists in

(1)any willful conduct which is such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or health (whether mental or physical ) of the woman;

(2) harm to such woman 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 demand.;

(3) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband;

For lodging the offence u/s 498A IPC it is to show that (a) A woman was married; (b) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or any relative of her husband.

In Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam 2004 (3) SCC 199 the Hon. Apex court held:-

The question as to who would be covered by the expression "husband" for attracting Section 498A does present problems. Etymologically, in terms of the definitions of "husband" and "marriage" as given in the various law lexicons and dictionaries - the existence of a valid marriage may appear to be a sine qua non for applying a penal provision. In Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhava woman claimed maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C"). This Court applied the provision of the Marriage Act and pointed out that same was a law which held the field after 1955, when it was enacted and Section 5 lays down that for a lawful marriage the necessary condition that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage is essential and marriage in contravention of this condition therefore is null and void. The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of "husband" and "wife" may require strict interpretation where claims for civil rights, right to property etc. may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different perception cannot be an anathema when the question of curbing a social evil is concerned. "

The concept of "dowry" is intermittently linked with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Act apply in relation to marriages. If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue, further legalistic problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Evidence Act") were introduced, cannot be lost sight of. Legislation enacted with some policy to curb and alleviate some public evil rampant in society and effectuate a definite public purpose or benefit positively requires to be interpreted with a certain element of realism too and not merely pedantically or hypertechnically. The obvious objective was to prevent harassment to a woman who enters into a marital relationship with a person and later on, becomes a victim of the greed for money. Can a person who enters into a marital arrangement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise? Such legalistic niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions..............The legislative intent is clear from the fact that it is not only the husband but also his relations who are covered by Section 498-A................ It would be appropriate to construe the expression "husband" to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerces her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions-Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of "husband" to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the purported exercise of their role and status as "husband" is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.

In Reema Aggarwal (Supra), it is further held:-

The definition of the expression "dowry" contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Act cannot be confined merely to be "demand" of money, property or valuable security made at or after the performance of marriage. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of "dowry" emphasized that any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, "before, at or after" the marriage would be covered by the expression "dowry" and this definition as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression "dowry" occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression "dowry" as commonly used and understood is different than the peculiar definition thereof under the Act. u/s 4, mere demand of "dowry" is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any "demand" of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fall within the mischief of "dowry" under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also, more particularly where the non-fulfillment of the "demand of dowry" leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The expression "dowry" under the Dowry Act has to be interpreted in the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it. The definition given in the statute is the determinative factor. The Dowry Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bridegroom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection or regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression "dowry" made punishable under the Dowry Act.

In Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam Vs. State of A.P., the Hon. Apex court has been pleased to observe as under:

Word "husband" in S. 498A is not limited to cover only those persons who have entered into legally valid marriage. The thrust of the offence under S. 498A is subjecting of the woman to cruelty. Likewise, the thrust of the offence u/s 304B is also the "Dowry Death". Consequently, the evil sought to be curbed are distinct and separate from the persons Committing the offending acts and there could be no impediment in law to liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons committing the offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority as such husband over another woman.

In the light of the legal proposition as extracted above and on perusal of the FIR lodged at Police Station Janakganj Gwalior, it clearly appears that the engagement ceremony of the daughter of complainant with son of accused-petitioners No. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 24th April 2011 and the proposed date of Marriage which was declared in engagement ceremony as 21st November 2011 was cancelled. A reading of Section 498A of I.P.C. indicates that the cruelty need not be in the form of demand for dowry. Sections 498A and 304B of I.P.C. create distinct offences. However, cruelty is a common element to both. A person charged u/s 304B can be convicted u/s 498A without being convicted u/s 304B of I.P.C. The expression cruelty postulates such a treatment as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will he harmful and injurious to her life. Therefore, to decide the question of cruelty the relevant factors are the matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife, their cultural and temperamental state of life, state of health and their interaction in daily life. As is clear from the above, the accused-petitioner No.3 at the time of registration of crime was not married. He was not husband of Neetu, daughter of complainant and accused Ram Narayan Shakya, Smt. Pramod Kumari Shakya and Arvind therefore shall not fall within the definition of the relatives from her husband side. Eventually, they are not covered by Section 498A of I.P.C. Considering the averments contained in the FIR, same does not disclose any willful conduct on the part of the accused-petitioners 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 or health (whether mental or physical) nor there appears that they caused harm to her with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. However, the fact contained in the FIR that before some days of marriage accused Ram Narayan illegally demanded Rs. Five lacs as expenses for functions of marriage and 10 Tolas of gold, one motorcycle, one laptop computer and one room air conditioner from complainant cannot loose its significance to prove that when complainant expressed his inability to satisfy the illegal demand of accused, the relationship before marriage and proposed marriage on the settled date were cancelled. The gifts and cash amount of Rs. One lac which were gifted to bridegroom and his relations were not returned back to the complainant, i.e., father of bride.

Considering the material available in the case-diary, this court has come to conclude that the allegation made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accept in its entirety do not constitute offence u/s 498A or Section 498A read with Section 511 of I.P.C. to establish a case against the accused/petitioners. Of course, other offences under other laws such as Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act may appear and can be proved against the petitioners/accused. On perusal of the case diary, it also appears that in the course of investigation the offences u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are added and at present the investigation has proceeded for offence u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the light of above discussions, this court is of the view that the investigation for offence u/s 498A read with Section 511 of I.P.C. is not tenable because the status of the petitioner No.3 as husband and other petitioners/accused as his relatives does not find established. Consequently, the FIR registered and the investigation commensurated for the offence u/s 498A read with Section 511 of I.P.C. against the petitioners are hereby quashed. However, the investigation shall continue against the accused for other offence punishable u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Resultantly, the petition stands partly allowed in the manner indicated above.