Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 498A SC Order - 16-Feb-2024

    Uploaded by

    Apno Guru
    5 views6 pages

    Original Title

    498A SC Order_16-Feb-2024

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    5 views6 pages

    498A SC Order - 16-Feb-2024

    Uploaded by

    Apno Guru

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    1

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024


    (Arising from SLP(Crl.)No(s).7381/2023)

    RAMESH KANNOJIYA & ANR. APPELLANT(S)

    VERSUS

    STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

    ORDER

    Leave granted.

    Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the

    respondents.

    The appellants have been implicated in a case arising

    out of a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the

    Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called “the IPC”) and the

    provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants

    are neighbours of the family of the husband (accused no.1).

    They also appear to have had facilitated the marriage between


    Signature Not Verified

    Digitally signed by
    NIRMALA NEGI
    Date: 2024.02.20
    17:09:28 IST
    Reason:

    the complainant and the said accused. Main argument of the


    2

    appellants is that they are not relatives of the husband and

    hence they cannot be implicated in any offence punishable

    under Section 498A of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the

    petition of the appellants for quashing the summoning order

    and the operative part of the judgment reads:­

    “At the initiation of the arguments extended by the learned


    counsel for the applicant, he attempted to argue the matter
    from the perspective that if the complaint as it was
    registered by respondent no.2 on 24.10.2020 is taken into
    consideration, their names appears in the complaint at
    serial number 5 and 6. He contends, that the entire
    summoning order which has been issued by the Court of
    Judicial Magistrate on 27.11.2020 would be bad in the
    eyes of the law for the reason being that the applicant,
    since not being related to the other opposite party, they
    may not be falling within the purview of commission of
    offence under Section 498A.
    In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the
    applicants has submitted, that he wants to place reliance
    on a judgment in which it has been dealt as to what the
    impact of the term 'relative' would be under Section 498A
    of IPC, had been considered by the judgment of the
    Allahabad High Court but, unfortunately, the learned
    counsel for the applicants is not ready with the said
    judgment and the various lame excuses have been taken
    for not being able to present the said judgment before the
    Court, because for the purposes of appreciation of a case
    to decide the matter on merits, the judgments are required
    to be scrutinized 1n the light of the actual controversy
    involved 1n a C482 application, and there cannot be only
    an oral assertion at the behest of the learned counsel for
    the applicants that the issue stands covered by the certain
    judgments, without placing the same before the Court.
    Faced with the aforesaid situation, this Court requested
    the learned counsel for the applicants to place the
    judgment before the Court. He said that he does not have
    the copy of the same and the C482 application may be
    dismissed.
    3

    Since, there is no proper assistance provided by the


    learned counsel for the applicant, the C482 application
    would stand dismissed.”
    (quoted verbatim from the judgment as reproduced in the
    paperbook)

    Before us, the appellants have relied on the judgment

    of this Court in the cases of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of

    Delhi reported in 2010 (11) SCC 618 and U. Suvetha vs. State

    By Inspector of Police and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 757.

    In the case of Vijeta Gajra (supra), it has been held by a

    coordinate Bench of this Court:­

    “12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word


    “relative” and further relying on P. Ramanatha Aiyar's
    Advance Law Lexicon, Vol. 4, 3rd Edn., the Court went on
    to hold that Section 498­A IPC being a penal provision
    would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual
    meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said
    statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the
    Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[(2007)
    7 SCC 162]. A reference was made to the decision in
    Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P.[(2007) 15
    SCC 369]. After quoting from various decisions of this
    Court, it was held that reference to the word “relative” in
    Section 498­A, IPC would be limited only to the blood
    relations or the relations by marriage.”

    In such circumstances, we modify the judgment

    assailed in this appeal and quash the summoning order as

    against the appellants so far as the allegation of commission of

    offence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned. The


    4

    appellants cannot be implicated in that offence. So far as other

    offences are concerned, the prosecution of the appellants shall

    proceed in accordance with law.

    The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

    Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

    ……......................J.
    [ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

    ............................J.
    [SANJAY KUMAR]

    New Delhi;
    February 16, 2024.
    5

    ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-B

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
    Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7381/2023
    (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-05-2023
    in C482 No. 175/2022 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At
    Nainital)

    RAMESH KANNOJIYA & ANR. PETITIONER(S)


    VERSUS
    STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
    ( IA No. 116189/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
    JUDGMENT & IA No. 116191/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

    Date : 16-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE


    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

    For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.


    Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR
    Mr. Anshuman Purohit, Adv.
    Mr. Gokul, Adv.
    Mrs. Kumari Supriya, Adv.
    Mr. Bharath, Adv.

    For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR


    Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.
    Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv.
    Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv.
    Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.
    Mr. Vishal Chauhan, Adv.
    Mr. Suraj Pal Singh, Adv.
    Mr. Himanshus Pal, Adv.

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following


    O R D E R

    Leave granted.

    The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order, which

    is placed on the file.

    Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

    (NIRMALA NEGI) (VIDYA NEGI)


    COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
    6

    You might also like