In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the case titled State of U.P. vs. Naveen Kumar Verma and Others (Criminal Case No. 11843 of 2018, Case Crime No. 490 of 2017). The case involved charges under Sections 498-A, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The proceedings were pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
Background of the Case:
The case stemmed from an FIR filed by the wife of Naveen Kumar Verma (Opposite Party No. 3), alleging that the applicant, a friend of her husband, had played a role in the matrimonial discord between herself and her husband. It was contended that the applicant was responsible for instigating the husband to ignore and harass the wife, leading to a divorce petition filed by the husband. The wife further alleged that the applicant abetted cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, and that her conduct contributed to the demand for dowry, invoking the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The applicant, represented by learned counsels Pradeep Kumar Singh and Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, sought the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, arguing that no offence under Section 498-A IPC could be made out against her as she was neither the husband nor a relative of the husband of the complainant. The counsel contended that the only connection between the applicant and the complainant’s husband was that they were classmates and friends, and their communication was being misconstrued as an abetment to the alleged offences.
Legal Issues Involved:
The core legal issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 498-A IPC, which deals with cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards the wife, and whether a friend of the husband could be implicated under this section. The court also examined whether the applicant’s actions constituted abetment under Section 120-B IPC and if any offense under the Dowry Prohibition Act could be made out against her.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Anish Kumar Gupta carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court observed that Section 498-A IPC applies specifically to the husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman, who allegedly subjects her to cruelty. The explanation under Section 498-A IPC defines “cruelty” to include any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, as well as harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security.
Quoting the court’s observation, Justice Gupta stated:
“From the facts of the instant case, no offence under Section 498-A IPC is made out against the applicant herein. The applicant is neither the husband nor a relative of the husband but merely a friend. A friend of the husband cannot be covered within the phrase ‘relative of the husband.'”
Furthermore, the court noted that there was no allegation of any demand for dowry by the applicant or any direct interference in the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband, except for being on talking terms with the husband. The court also dismissed the allegations under Section 120-B IPC, concluding that there was no overt act on the part of the applicant that could be construed as a criminal conspiracy.
Consequently, the court held that the prosecution of the applicant was based on mere suspicion and constituted a malicious prosecution by the complainant due to her suspicion of an illicit relationship between the applicant and her husband.
In light of the above findings, the Allahabad High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court’s decision reinforces the legal principle that mere suspicion or friendship cannot form the basis for a criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC or related provisions of the law.
The judgment was delivered on September 10, 2024, with the legal representation for the State of U.P. by Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, AGA, and the opposite party represented by Dhirendra Singh and Dinesh Kumar Maurya.
