The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case GMR v. Smt. GS observed wherein a criminal case was filed by the woman against her husband and in-law, the court stated that neglecting the child and refusing to take responsibility for his treatment does not fall under the ambit of cruelty under Section 498-A or criminal intimidation under section 506 Indian Penal Code,1860. Therefore, the court quashed the criminal case filed by a woman against her in-laws and husband.
In the present case, the court was hearing the criminal petition of husband and in-laws of the woman for quashing the case filed under section 498-A, section 509, section 506, section 354 reading with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that it was being filed beyond the period of limitation and the case is not made out.
Therefore, it has been contended by the respondent-wife before the court that the offence of cruelty and the criminal intimidation has continued because petitioner-wife husband and her in-laws has failed to visit her and also to take up the responsibility for the treatment of child.
Facts of the Case:
The de facto complainant wife and petitioner husband were married in November 2011. Later, it has also been alleged by the wife that her husband and in-laws harassed her and has mistreated her. Therefore, the said harassment has been carried out by her husband and in-laws for the purpose of extracting money from her parents.
Further, the son was born to the wife in September, 2015 and the wife 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 to the son.
It has also been alleged by the wife in a criminal plea that her son had some problems in his testicles and had to undergo an operation. Thus, No financial support was provided by the petitioner husband or in-laws.
The complaint was filed by wife for offences under section 498-A, section 509, section 506, section 354 reading with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the husband and the in-laws.
However, the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet took cognizance of the case for the offences under section 498-A, section 509, section 506, section 354 reading with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court stated while considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the complaint, filed by the de facto complainant, being beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Kamlesh Kalra vs Shilpika Kalra & Ors, wherein the court noted and has held that a complaint filed more than three years after separation of the couple would have to be held to be barred by limitation as per the Limitation Act.
Accordingly, the court quashed the case on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and has allowed the criminal petition moved by the wife.
