BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
- The husband of the complainant is the first accused.
- The petitioner was presented as the second accused.
- The petitioner was her husband’s girlfriend.
- The petitioner filed a FIR against the second accused.
CASE BEFORE THE COURT
- Allegations were made by the complainant that her husband had developed illegal intimacy and closeness with the petitioner.
- A case was registered under Section 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code.
SECTION 498A IPC
- It states that if the husband or any relative of the husband of a woman, subjects the woman to any kind of cruelty, would be punished with 3 years of imprisonment and would also be liable to fine.
- It safeguards the rights of a woman.
- The offence under Section 498-A is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
- Advocate Naga Parveen Vankayalpati appeared as the counsel for the petitioner.
- He requested to quash the FIR on the grounds that, under Section 498A IPC, only the relatives of the husband, who are connected by blood or marriage, are liable for the prosecution.
- Thus, a girlfriend or concubine is not liable to be prosecuted under this provision.
- Justice Cheekati Manavendranath quashed the FIR against the petitioner.
- The Court observed that a girlfriend or concubine, who is not connected by blood or by marriage and is not a relative of the husband, cannot be liable under Section 498-A IPC.
- In U. Suvetha vs State, 2009, the Apex Court had observed that only husbands and relatives of the husband can commit offences under Section 498A IPC.
- As a girlfriend or concubine is not connected by blood or marriage, and is not a relative of the husband, she cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC.
- The Court ordered a stay order on the further proceeding pursuant to registration of FIR, with respect to the petitioner only.
- The Apex Court also ordered the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps regarding this, matter including arrest against the petitioner.
- But the investigation must go on against the other accused.
What do you think of this case?