Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.31 seconds)U.Suvetha vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009
"11. Shri U.U. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that in U.
Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr. [(2009) 6
SCC 757], it was specifically held that in order to be
covered under Section 498A, IPC one has to be a
`relative' of the husband by blood, marriage or
adoption. He pointed out that the present appellant was
not in any manner a `relative' as referred to in Section
498A, IPC and, therefore, there is no question of any
allegation against her in respect of the ill-treatment of
the complainant.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vijeta Gajra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 July, 2010
17. Though, on behalf of the State, it was contended that the
petition be dismissed, on a consideration of the verdicts relied upon on
behalf of the petitioners in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of
Police and Anr." (supra) and the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and "State
of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh" (supra) in relation to the same aspect, it
is apparent that the expression 'relative of the husband' under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is a penal provision has to
be given a strict interpretation in the absence of any statutory
definition of the term 'relative' which thus has to be assigned a
meaning as is knowingly understood and is to include a person related
by blood, marriage or adoption as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr."
(supra) and in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and
thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is apparent
that the two present petitioners namely Akhtar and Hanif arrayed as
accused in the FIR No. 461/2013 dated 02.07.2013, PS Govindpuri
under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not
related to the husband of the complainant nor by the blood, nor by
marriage, nor by adoption, in as much as the two petitioners are the
maternal uncles of the sister-in-law (Jethani) i.e. the maternal
uncles of the sister-in-law i.e. the wife of the elder brother of the
husband of the complainant and can thus, not in any manner fall
within the meaning of the term 'relative' of the husband of the
complainant as being related to him by blood, marriage or adoption.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sri T. Ashok Pai vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore on 18 May, 2007
12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word
`relative' and further relying on R. Ramanatha Aiyar's
Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 3rd Edition, the Court
went on to hold that Section 498A, IPC being a penal
provision would deserve strict construction and unless a
contextual meaning is required to be given to the
statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On
CRL.M.C.4416/2015 Page 15 of 18
that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok
Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162].
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors on 16 January, 1996
17. Though, on behalf of the State, it was contended that the
petition be dismissed, on a consideration of the verdicts relied upon on
behalf of the petitioners in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of
Police and Anr." (supra) and the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and "State
of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh" (supra) in relation to the same aspect, it
is apparent that the expression 'relative of the husband' under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is a penal provision has to
be given a strict interpretation in the absence of any statutory
definition of the term 'relative' which thus has to be assigned a
meaning as is knowingly understood and is to include a person related
by blood, marriage or adoption as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr."
(supra) and in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and
thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is apparent
that the two present petitioners namely Akhtar and Hanif arrayed as
accused in the FIR No. 461/2013 dated 02.07.2013, PS Govindpuri
under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not
related to the husband of the complainant nor by the blood, nor by
marriage, nor by adoption, in as much as the two petitioners are the
maternal uncles of the sister-in-law (Jethani) i.e. the maternal
uncles of the sister-in-law i.e. the wife of the elder brother of the
husband of the complainant and can thus, not in any manner fall
within the meaning of the term 'relative' of the husband of the
complainant as being related to him by blood, marriage or adoption.