APHC010410202022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6305 OF 2022 Between: R.M. Lavanya ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HARISH KUMAR RASINENI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/ Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in C.C.No. 325 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. 2. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is shown as A-2 in the case and she is not relative of her husband. It is alleged that information submitted to the police to the effect that respondent No.2 is receiving some objectionable messages from one Mr. Jayavardhan, who is friend of A-1. The said SIM card stands in the name of present petitioner, who is colleague of A-1. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner being an outsider of the family, the case is not maintainable against her along with Section 498-A of IPC. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ respondent No.1 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders, since the petitioner is not the relative of her husband. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that as per the Charge Sheet, the offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC are there against the petitioner, but not Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, the case can be proceeded against the petitioner. At the instance of A-2 and A-3, A-1 used to harass the petitioner for additional dowry, hence prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and fair look at the contentions of information, which was submitted to the Police by respondent No.2, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner herein is not relative of A-1. Admittedly, the petitioner is a colleague in the office of A-1. No doubt, some allegations made against the petitioner to the fact that in the name of Mr. Jayavardhan, she used to send abusive messages to respondent No.2. 7. It is pertinent to state that, Section 498-A of I.P.C. is a powerful weapon engrafted by the law, to the rescue of a married woman, subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or by the relative of husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “U. Suvetha v. State”1, interpreted the term “relative” as appearing in Section 498-A of I.P.C., in the following terms: “9. The word “cruelty” having been defined in terms of the aforesaid Explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. An offence in terms of the said provision is committed by the persons specified therein. They have to be the “husband” or his “relative”. Either the husband of the woman or his relative must have subjected her to cruelty within the aforementioned provision. If the appellant had not (sic) been instigating the husband of the first informant to torture her, as has been noticed by the High Court, the husband would be committing some offence punishable under the other provisions of the Penal Code and the appellant may be held guilty for abetment of commission of such an offence but not an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. 10. In the absence of any statutory definition, the term “relative” must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word “relative” would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. ***** 13. Furthermore, Section 498-A is a penal one. It, thus, deserves strict construction. Ordinarily, save and except where a contextual meaning is required to be given to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. This Court in T. 1 (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 36 Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162 : (2007) 8 Scale 354] held as under: (SCC p. 168, para 17) “17. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the more stringent is the law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary. Even when the burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy as on the prosecution. (See P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala [1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 466] .)” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In the light of the legal position referred supra, the petitioner is admittedly is a colleague of A-1 and not a relative of A-1, the case against her cannot be mixed up under Section 498-A of IPC, which is lodged against the husband and his relatives. In that view, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the present case is sheer abuse of process of law. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed; the case against the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the respondent No.2 is at liberty to work out her remedies against the petitioner in a separate case, if so advised, according to law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.02.2025 KK