reported by, Salil Tiwari
Last Update: May 25, 2023, 21:20 IST
The court was hearing a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in the death of a woman. representative image
The Court observed that the wife having an illicit relationship would actually have an adverse effect on the husband who could not remain silent in such a situation.
The Telangana High Court recently observed that the act of a husband reprimanding his wife for having an illicit relationship with another man would not, in any way, amount to abetment to suicide.
A single-judge bench of Justice K Surendra said that abetment to commit suicide would amount to active abetment.
The court was hearing a plea seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in the death of a woman. The petition was filed by the sister of the deceased woman’s husband, who along with two others has been made an accused in the case and all facing prosecution for offenses under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegations against the petitioner and the husband of the deceased were that they had harassed the deceased for her illegal relationship with another person and because of this she had committed suicide.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the prosecution’s case is accepted, no offense under Section 498-A and Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner.
He argued that warning the wife not to have illicit relationship with another man cannot be said to abet or harass her to commit suicide; Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, the plea was opposed by the Additional Public Prosecutor who argued that the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act was against the husband and the family members.
The High Court observed that to attract cruelty, it has to be proved that the victim was intentionally subjected to physical or mental torture or was subjected to additional dowry harassment by the husband and relatives. The court said that only such harassment would come within the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC.
The HC highlighted that apart from the evidence that the deceased was being warned to commit illicit intimacy, there was no other evidence to prove harassment.
The Court observed that on the other hand, having an illegal relationship with one wife would actually have an adverse effect on the husband and the family both individually and also in society and in such a situation the husband cannot remain silent.
Therefore, while stressing that in the present case, the fact of illicit intimacy was not in dispute, the court observed that, therefore, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner asking the deceased to desist from any illicit relationship Can’t be either way. manner, amounting to abetment under section 107 of IPC.
Further, the court noted that the petitioner, who was the sister-in-law of the deceased, was married and was living separately at the time of the incident.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the present petitioner.
