NIYAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a case wherein the accused (the husband and the sister-in-law) were charge sheeted by the police for the offence punishable under Sec. 498 A IPC. The allegation is that at the residence of the defacto complainant PW1/the wife, the husband raised a demand for more dowry and assaulted her. It is not mentioned or spoken to by PW1 or any of the witnesses examined from the side of prosecution the nature of the assault on the defacto complainant. It is not specified the nature of assault alleged to have been done by the accused towards the defacto complainant.

(2.) The cruelty within the meaning of Sec. 498A IPC consists of two clauses (a) and (b) within the Explanation attached to that Sec. . The clause (a) explains "cruelty" within its sphere any wilful conduct from the part of husband or the relative of husband as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental. It is by way of clause (b), even a "harassment" to the woman was brought under the purview of "cruelty" for the purpose of Sec. 498-A IPC, if 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 on account of failure to meet such demand, which would by itself show that the "harassment" must be of such a nature to exert compulsion with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Necessarily, in order to bring home the application of clause (b) of Explanation attached to Sec. 498 A IPC, atleast the following ingredients should be established; (i) there should be harassment on account of an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security by the husband or his relatives (ii) it should be towards the wife or her relatives (iii) the wife or her relatives were subjected to harassment (cruelty) with a view to coerce her or her relatives to meet such unlawful demand or the harassment is on account of failure to meet such demand. Mere sporadic incidents of ill-treatment or mundane differences or trivial disputes that may arise between the spouses or their relatives in the usual course of life, though it may have its own impact, may not be sufficient to bring out the offence under Sec. 498 A IPC. The expression "harassment" is not defined in the provision or anywhere in the Code. It should be understood in relation to the mischief sought to be suppressed under the said provision. Necessarily, the wording used "coercing" in clause (b) assumes importance. The word 'coercion' is also not defined anywhere in the provision or in the Code, but can find a place under Sec. 15 of the Contract Act, which stands for "committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Code or an unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person "to enter into an agreement"". The expression 'to enter into an agreement' as incorporated in the definition clause under Sec. 15 of the Contract Act, be understood substituted by the expression 'to meet any unlawful demand or on account of failure to meet such demand', for the purpose of clause (b) of Explanation to Sec. 498 A IPC in order to have an understanding of the word "coercing" used in clause (b) of the Explanation and it will give rise to an idea about what actually constitutes the expression "harassment" to bring home the vital ingredient of the said offence "cruelty" and it shall not be misunderstood with the dictionary meaning or any act of "cruelty" without the element, which would constitute clauses (a) or (b) of Explanation attached to, for the purpose of criminal liability under that provision viz., Sec. 498 A IPC. The ingredient, which would constitute "coercion" must be applied so as to have an understanding of what actually amounts to 'harassment' within the meaning of clause (b) of the Explanation. The corollary is that in order to bring home the vital ingredient "cruelty" under Clause (b) of Explanation, the 'harassment' must be of the nature sufficient to coerce either the wife or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet that demand. A mere skirmish in the ordinary life between the spouses or intermittent quarrel or even a frequent quarrel, unless constitutes the ingredient of 'harassment' for meeting an unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet such unlawful demand, would not constitute or attract the criminal liability that can be fastened for the offence under Sec. 498 A IPC. Like wise, a demand for dowry or any property or valuable security without the ingredient of "cruelty" as explained under clause (a) or (b) will not attract the said offence, but a combined effect of both these would bring home the liability under Sec. 498 A IPC.

(3.) The requirement to be established to bring home the guilt of accused under Sec. 498 A has been laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions such as Satish Kumar Batra and Others v. State of Haryana (AIR 2009 SC 2180), Rajendran and Another v. State Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) (AIR 2004 SC 855), Onkar Nath Mishra and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi and Another) (AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 204), M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P. (AIR 2007 SC 3146), wherein it is settled that consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of Sec. 498 A IPC.