Strict construction of Section 498A limits prosecution to relatives by blood, marriage or adoption; FIR survives for breach of trust allegations.

Section 498A IPC must be strictly construed, and the term "relative" is limited to persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. A person outside that class cannot be prosecuted under that provision, so the allegation under Section 498A could not proceed. The FIR was not quashed in full because the allegations of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 required evidentiary examination and remained subsisting. Limited protective directions were granted to prevent unnecessary attendance and coercive steps while the prosecution could continue only on the Section 406 allegations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, not being a relative of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption, could be subjected to prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the FIR deserved to be quashed in entirety in view of the allegations under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant, not being a relative of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption, could be subjected to prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Section 498A is a penal provision and calls for strict construction. The expression "relative" in that provision was treated as confined to relations by blood, marriage or adoption. On that footing, a person who does not answer that description cannot be proceeded against under that section.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be tried for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the FIR had no consequence to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIR deserved to be quashed in entirety in view of the allegations under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The allegations relating to jewellery and criminal breach of trust were not examined on merits because they required proof by evidence. In view of the subsisting allegations under Section 406, the FIR was not quashed in full, though protective directions were issued to safeguard the appellant against unnecessary attendance and coercive steps.

Conclusion: The FIR was not quashed in entirety, and the prosecution could continue only in relation to the allegations under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the protective directions granted to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained partial relief: prosecution under Section 498A was excluded, but the FIR was allowed to survive for the allegations under Section 406 with limited protection against coercive action.

Ratio Decidendi: The term "relative" in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is to be strictly construed as limited to relations by blood, marriage or adoption, and a person outside that class cannot be prosecuted under that provision.

---