The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently quashed a criminal case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws, ruling that neglecting the child and refusing to take responsibility for his treatment does not fall under the ambit of cruelty as per Section 498-A or criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complaint was filed by the wife for offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC against the husband and in-laws, alleging that she was harassed and mistreated by them for money, and that no financial support was provided when her son needed an operation.

In November 2011, complainant wife and petitioner husband were married. Later, the wife alleged that her husband and in-laws harassed and mistreated her for the purpose of extracting money from her parents.

In September 2015, a son was born to the wife and she was allegedly sent away to her matrimonial home and neither her husband nor any of her in-laws had bothered to look after her or their son.

According to the wife, her son had some problems in his testicles and had to undergo an operation. However, the petitioner husband or in-laws did not provide any financial support either.

The petitioner husband and in-laws approached the High Court for quashing the case, arguing that it was filed beyond the period of limitation set out under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

The counsel for the complainant-wife argued that the harassment continued even after she returned to her parental home in November 2015. She claimed that both she and her child were neglected and forced to live with her parents despite their ill health.

The counsel of the husband argued that once Section 354 of IPC is excluded from the charge sheet, all the other offences do not attract a punishment of more than three years and the limitation for filing a complaint under these provisions would be three years from the date of offence. In this case, all the allegations related to offences prior to November, 2015 while the complaint was filed in May 2019 which is clearly beyond the period of three years.

The bench presided by Justice R.Raghunandan Rao noted that the magistrate had not recorded a brief note setting out their satisfaction for taking cognizance, and that the complaint was filed more than three years after she returned to her parents’ home, which is beyond the prescribed time limit.

The court explained that the complaint by the de facto complainant was filed more than three years after she returned to her parents’ home, which is beyond the prescribed time limit. This would result in the complaint under Sections 498-A, 509 or 506 of IPC being barred by limitation.

“The allegations in relations to the later period are allegations of neglect and refusal to visit or meet the de facto complainant or her child. It would have to be seen whether this behaviour would attract any of the provisions contained in the charge sheet,” the court said.

“These actions of neglect would not fall within ambit of Section 498-A of I.P.C,” it added.

However, the court noted that there was no recorded reason as to why cognizance had been taken under Section 354 when the investigating officer had dropped that provision, nor was there any explanation as to why cognizance had not been taken under Section 509 when the investigating officer had included it in the charge sheet.

The court held that the complaint filed by the wife is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, and consequently, the case was dismissed.

Case Title- GMR v. Smt. GS