Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Neglecting Child’s Treatment Does Not Constitute Cruelty Under Section 498-A IPC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a criminal case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The court ruled that neglecting the child’s treatment does not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
Case Background
The wife filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws for harassment and lack of financial support for her child’s medical treatment. The couple married in November 2011, and their son was born in September 2015. The wife alleged that her husband and in-laws mistreated her and demanded money from her parents. When her son needed surgery, they provided no financial assistance.
Legal Arguments
The husband and in-laws petitioned the High Court to dismiss the case, arguing it was filed after the statute of limitations under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The wife’s counsel contended that the harassment continued even after she moved back to her parental home in November 2015.
The husband’s counsel noted that without Section 354 IPC in the charge sheet, the remaining offenses did not warrant a punishment exceeding three years, making the complaint time-barred as it was filed in May 2019, well beyond the three-year limitation period.
Court’s Decision
Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, presiding over the bench, observed that the magistrate did not record reasons for taking cognizance of the complaint, which was filed more than three years after the wife returned to her parents’ home. This delay made the complaint under Sections 498-A, 506, and 509 IPC invalid.
The court explained that the allegations of neglect and refusal to visit the wife and child did not meet the criteria for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigating officer had dropped Section 354 IPC but included Section 509 IPC, yet the magistrate did not provide an explanation for these discrepancies.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the case, emphasizing that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
