- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
W. Kalyani v. State Through Inspector Of Police And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Gummadi Sailaja lodged a criminal complaint against nine persons—her husband, in-laws, relatives and acquaintances—alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 386, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused 8, the present appellant, was described as the husband’s “girlfriend.” After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet that, in so far as Accused 8 was concerned, invoked Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 497 (adultery).
The complainant sought quashing of the criminal proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By judgment dated 2-11-2009, the High Court quashed the case against Accused 5, 6 and 9 but refused relief to Accused 8. Three Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) were thereafter filed in the Supreme Court: (i) SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2450 and 3856 of 2010 by the complainant challenging the quashing in favour of Accused 5, 6 and 9, and (ii) SLP (Crl.) No. 648 of 2010 by Accused 8 challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the case against her.
The Supreme Court dismissed the complainant’s two SLPs for lack of merit, condoned delay in SLP 3856/2010, granted leave in SLP 648/2010, and proceeded to examine whether the criminal proceedings against Accused 8 ought to be quashed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a woman can be prosecuted for the offence of adultery under Section 497 IPC.
- Whether the factual allegations in the complaint disclose the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC against Accused 8.
- Consequently, whether the criminal proceedings against Accused 8 (CC No. 482 of 2008) should be quashed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Applicability of Section 497 (Adultery). The Court reproduced the text of Section 497 IPC and noted that, as presently enacted, the provision criminalises only a male who engages in sexual intercourse with a married woman without her husband’s consent. It expressly states that “the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor.” Hence, by the plain language of the statute, a woman—irrespective of her alleged role—cannot be prosecuted for adultery. Accused 8, being a woman, enjoys complete statutory immunity from this charge.
2. Applicability of Section 341 (Wrongful Restraint). The Court examined the complaint and found no allegation that Accused 8 had restrained the complainant in any manner. The only assertion was that Accused 8 accompanied the couple to Tirupati and allegedly slept in the same cot with the complainant’s husband. Such conduct, even if taken at face value, does not satisfy the ingredients of wrongful restraint.
3. Overall sufficiency of allegations. Taking all averments at their highest, the Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against Accused 8 for any offence. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
4. High Court’s Error. Because the statutory bar under Section 497 and the absence of any material for Section 341 were apparent on the record, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in refusing to quash the proceedings against Accused 8 when it had already quashed them for similarly situated co-accused.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; PROCEEDINGS QUASHED AGAINST ACCUSED 8. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it related to Accused 8 and quashed CC No. 482 of 2008 pending before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, arising out of Crime No. 80 of 2008.
Implications: The decision disposes of the criminal case against Accused 8 alone and reiterates the statutory position that a woman cannot be prosecuted for adultery under Section 497 IPC. No broader legal precedent was established beyond the direct application of the statutory text to the facts.
Aftab Alam, J.— Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3856 of 2010. The Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment and order dated 2-11-2009 quashed the proceedings arising from a criminal complaint in respect of Accused 5, 6 and 9 but declined to interfere in favour of Accused 8 in the complaint. These three special leave petitions arise from the same judgment. SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 2450 and 3856 of 2010 are filed by the complainant who is aggrieved by the order insofar as it quashed the proceedings against Accused 5, 6 and 9 and SLP (Crl.) No. 648 of 2010 is filed by Accused 8 whose petition for quashing was dismissed by the High Court.
2. On hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we find no merit in SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 2450 and 3856 of 2010. These two special leave petitions are dismissed. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 648 of 2010 filed by Accused 8 in the complaint.
3. Gummadi Sailaja filed a complaint against nine accused under Sections 498-A, 386, 341 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Accused 1 is her husband and Accused 2, her mother-in-law. Accused 3 is the younger brother of her husband and Accused 9 is his wife. Accused 4 is the maternal uncle of the husband of the complainant. Accused 6 and Accused 5 are husband and wife and they along with Accused 7 are said to be close friends of the complainant's husband who actively participated in her marriage with her husband. Accused 8, the appellant, is described in the complaint as the girlfriend of the complainant's husband with whom he had illicit sexual relations.
4. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant came in contact with Accused 1 through a matrimonial site on the internet. At that time Accused 1 was a software engineer working in US and she had herself done MPhil. They agreed to marry and Accused 1 promised that he would not ask for any dowry. However, when his mother, Accused 2, came to know of the proposal she demanded a sum of Rs 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs only) and 50 sovereigns of jewellery as dowry.
5. The complainant and her people did not wish to miss her match with Accused 1 and she also believed that Accused 1 was not aware of the demand made by his mother. She, therefore, agreed to meet the demand of Accused 2 and their marriage took place in the night of 3-2-2007/4-2-2007. After marriage they stayed together in his house at Visakhapatnam. After a few days she was taken to Tirupati for “darasanam” of Lord Venkateswara. Accused 8 also accompanied them and it is further alleged that her husband and Accused 8 moved together very freely as if they were spouses.
6. The specific allegations against Accused 8 in the words of the complainant are as follows:
“Along with them one Kalyani also followed to Tirupati with whom A-1 moved very freely as if she were his wife. Kalyani, said to be the girlfriend of A-1, moved with A-1 very freely as if they were wife and husband and used to sleep in one cot keeping the complainant outside the room.”
7. The complainant goes on that her husband, Accused 1, took her to Florida, USA where she was subjected to great harassment and cruelty. In January 2008 he lost his job in US and came back to Hyderabad. Here again there is a long narrative of the cruelty meted out to the complainant in connection with the demand for further dowry and to get her consent for divorce under duress and coercion and physical assault. What is, however, significant to note is that in the latter part of the complaint there is no mention of Accused 8 and she seems to figure only during the visit to Tirupati.
8. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused. In the police charge-sheet the different accused are charged differently. So far as the appellant is concerned, she is charged under Sections 341 and 497 of the Penal Code.
9. Section 497 deals with the offence of adultery and provides as follows:
“497. Adultery.—Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.”
10. The provision is currently under criticism from certain quarters for showing a strong gender bias for it makes the position of a married woman almost as a property of her husband. But in terms of the law as it stands, it is evident from a plain reading of the section that only a man can be proceeded against and punished for the offence of adultery. Indeed, the section provides expressly that the wife cannot be punished even as an abettor. Thus, the mere fact that the appellant is a woman makes her completely immune to the charge of adultery and she cannot be proceeded against for that offence.
11. As regards Section 341 of the Penal Code, on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint, we fail to see how the charge of wrongful restraint can be made out against the appellant.
12. All the allegations in the complaint taken on their face value do not make out any case against the accused. We are, therefore, satisfied that the proceedings against the appellant are equally fit to be quashed and the High Court was in error in not allowing the quashing application filed by the appellant. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and quash the proceedings of CC No. 482 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, arising out of Crime No. 80 of 2008 of Ainavilli Police Station insofar as the appellant-Accused 8 is concerned.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Alert