Court rules appellant not tried under Sec 498A IPC, but FIR stands for Sec 406 allegations.

The Court held that the appellant would not be tried for the offense under Section 498A, IPC as she did not qualify as a 'relative' under the section. However, the FIR was not entirely quashed due to allegations under Section 406, IPC concerning jewelry. The Court refrained from making a judgment on the Section 406 allegations at that stage, emphasizing the need for evidence. Protective measures were ordered for the appellant, allowing her to skip proceedings unless necessary and avoiding coercive action, with the possibility of bail if charges were framed.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to High Court order dismissing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing FIR u/s 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Allegation under Section 498A, IPC
The FIR lodged by the complainant contained allegations of dowry demands, misbehavior, and mistreatment against the appellant, who was claimed to be involved with the husband and foster family. The appellant challenged the trial under Section 498A, IPC, arguing that she did not qualify as a 'relative' under the section. The Court, following precedent, held that the term 'relative' in Section 498A, IPC is limited to blood relations or relations by marriage, excluding paramours or concubines. Consequently, the appellant was not to be tried for the offense under Section 498A, IPC.

Issue 2: Allegation under Section 406, IPC
Regarding the allegation of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, IPC concerning jewelry, the Court refrained from making a judgment at that stage. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations were baseless and malicious, aimed at disrupting her marital life. While acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, the Court did not delve into their validity, emphasizing that they should be proven through evidence. The Court directed that the appellant need not attend proceedings unless specifically required and should not face coercive action. Bail would be granted if the charge was framed, with a caution for the Court to be diligent in this regard.

In conclusion, the Court decided that the appellant would not be tried for the offense under Section 498A, IPC. However, the FIR was not quashed entirely due to the allegations under Section 406, IPC, with protective measures in place for the appellant. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.

---