Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Cyriac Joseph
Date of Judgement: 8 July 2010
Facts of the Case: An FIR was lodged by Gunjan Sujanani, w/o Rohit Sujanani. Gunjan Sujanani stated about her marriage with Rohit on 08.07.2003 and that he was a resident of Nigeria. It was claimed that before the marriage, Rohit had introduced Gunjan to one Mr. Sham and Mrs. Lavina Daswani as his foster parents and also said that he had two foster sisters, namely, Vijeta Daswani-the appellant, who was a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the other being one Ms. Ritika Daswani, who resided with her mother in London. There were allegations about the demand of dowry against the husband and Mrs. Lavina Daswani. There were also allegations regarding the relations of her husband Rohit Sujanani with Mrs. Lavina Daswani and Vijeta Daswani/Gajra. It was then contended that in December, 2003, when the complainant had gone to Sierra Leone, Vijeta Dasawani/Gajra took away her diamond encrusted heavy gold pendant and chain and earring set on the pretext that she wanted to wear them once and she would keep them at a safe place in her father’s house, which was not returned to the complainant. Further, it was stated that in May, 2004, Mr. Rohit Sujanani and Mrs. Lavina Daswani insisted that the complainant should keep her jewellery in London and claimed that she was slapped by her husband on her refusal. It was further claimed that in November, 2004, the present appellant, Vijeta Gajra got married during which the complainant had to beg for her ornaments for attending the marriage. The complainant claimed that she was pregnant for the first time and yet she was given physical and mental ill treatment because of which she had a mis-carriage. It was claimed that the complainant delivered a baby on 08.03.2007. It was also alleged that her husband was having sexual relations with the appellant herein and Mrs.Lavina Daswani. There was a reference that during the appellant’s stay at the house of complainant’s parents, she was wearing the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which she had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone. A demand of two crores of rupees having been made by Vijeta and her mother over the phone to the complainant as a cost of peace and marital happiness was also alleged. There was a reference to a telephonic conversation with Mrs. Lavina Daswani in this regard. There was a further reference to an ugly scene on account of arguments. However, there was also a reference to the presence of the brother of the complainant on account of which further ugly scenes were avoided. It was complained that, thereafter, the complainant and her parents tried to contact Rohit Sujanani and the Daswanis who were avoiding them and not returning jewellery which was with Vijeta Gajra, Lavina Daswani and Rohit Sujanani. On the basis of this FIR, the appellant was sent a summons under Section 160, Cr. P.C. and she moved the Court of Additional Sessions Judge under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. In that application, she had made a reference to the summons asking her to appear on 05.06.2008. It was claimed in the application that the complainant’s husband Rohit Sujanani was an employee of appellant’s father who has business in Sierra Leone and that he was employed on contract basis for the period of three years in 1994. It was claimed in that application that the appellant had met the complainant last in 2007. It was also stated that the allegations made in the FIR were concocted, false and baseless and she had no connection whatsoever with the family of the complainant or her parents. She complained that her own marriage was being tried to be destroyed by wild allegations. The High Court had passed the order disposing it of since the State’s Counsel had stated that in the event the FIR was registered, the applicant would be informed of this fact and no coercive action would be taken against her till then. In her application there was a statement that she did not even belong to the family of the complainant, her husband or any of their relatives and that all the allegations were palpably false.
It was then stated that the writ petition was filed which came to be disposed of by the High Court. The complainant sought the direction to implead herself in the writ petition-cum-Section 482 Cr.P.C application filed by the appellant.
Issue: Whether it would be expedient to continue the criminal prosecution against the appellant.
Judgement: 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. The Court in this case examined the specific language of the Section and the Explanation thereof came to the conclusion that the word `relative’ would not include a paramour or concubine or so. After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word `relative’ in Section 498A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that there will be no question of her prosecution under Section 498A, IPC. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, also did not seriously dispute this proposition.
The allegation under Section 406, IPC for the offence of criminal breach of trust were made as there are allegations in respect of the jewellery. The Court desisted from going into the correctness or otherwise of these allegations as they were to be proved by evidence. Shri Lalit pointed out that on the face of it the allegations are wild and baseless as the appellant herself comes from a wealthy background and was a married lady having settled down in Indore and was also mother of a child. He pointed that the FIR was calculated to destroy her marital life with the wildest possible allegations and, therefore, the Court quashed the entire FIR as not being bona fide and actuated by malice.
The allegations were undoubtedly extremely wild and disgusting. However, how far those allegations can be used to meet the requirements for the offence under Section 406, IPC was a moot question. The Court did not go into that exercise. Whatever the form in which the allegations under Section 406, IPC were made, the fact of the matter was that there was an FIR and the Court concerned had taken cognizance thereof. Under these circumstances, the Court only protected the interest of the appellant by directing that she would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity. The Court observed that no coercive step should be taken against her and she should be granted bail by the Court trying the case if it decided to try the offence by carefully framing the charge.
Ratio: The word `relative’ in Section 498A, IPC would not include a paramour or concubine or so. The word `relative’ in Section 498A would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.
Decision: The Court held that the appellant should not be tried for offence under Section 498A, IPC. However, it did not quash the FIR altogether in view of the allegations made under Section 406, IPC with the protection that the Court had granted to the appellant. The appeals were disposed of.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi