498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019- NO NEXUS of DEMAND does not Attract Section 498A IPC, FIR QUASHED
 |
| 498A Quash Judgment 16.10.2019 |
498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019- In this article, the Allahabad High Court held that where there is no nexus of the dowry demand in Allegations and where no specific role has been leveled against In-Laws, then the Criminal Proceeding is bad in law. Neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor an investigation was conducted, and general allegations were leveled against the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law. Therefore, the Criminal Proceedings against the In-laws are hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. filed by the wife, after the marriage, the wife started to live in her matrimonial home with her husband, parents-in-law, and other In-laws.
It is stated by the wife that the mother-in-law permitted the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife, and Other In-laws supported the husband.
It is also stated that the In-laws demanded additional dowry and caused cruelty, harassment, and beating to the wife.
Upon this, the wife filed the F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504, 307 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act at Police Station, district Aligarh against her husband, Parents-in-law, Brother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law. And after the Investigation, a chargesheet was filed and submitted by the Police against them.
_________________________________________________
Read the latest Article- 498A Quash Judgement 01.11.2022- Andhra Pradesh High Court - General and Omnibus Allegations against the Brother-in-law. F.I.R Quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. filed by the wife, after the marriage, the wife started to live in her matrimonial home with her husband, parents-in-law, and other In-laws.
It is stated by the wife that the mother-in-law permitted the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife, and Other In-laws supported the husband.
It is also stated that the In-laws demanded additional dowry and caused cruelty, harassment, and beating to the wife.
Upon this, the wife filed the F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504, 307 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act at Police Station, district Aligarh against her husband, Parents-in-law, Brother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law. And after the Investigation, a chargesheet was filed and submitted by the Police against them.
_________________________________________________
Read the latest Article- 498A Quash Judgement 01.11.2022- Andhra Pradesh High Court - General and Omnibus Allegations against the Brother-in-law. F.I.R Quashed.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the In-laws submitted that the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet submitted by the Investigation Officer is illegal and non-application of judicial mind.
It is also submitted that though the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law are women, yet chargesheet was submitted against them for the offense under Section 376 and 377 of IPC, and the concerned magistrate while taking cognizance of the chargesheet did not take into account this fact and took cognizance for the aforesaid offenses against them also.
The advocate referred to the conclusion part of the chargesheet and submitted that earlier on 02.03.2016, one application was moved by the wife at the Women's Police Station, and the present F.I.R. was lodged on 17.03.2016 for the offense under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act specifying the date of offense as 15.03.2016.
It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned against the Maternal Uncle-in-law, but the concerned magistrate without going through the evidence collected by the Investigation officer during the investigation took cognizance against him also for all offenses mentioned in the chargesheet.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the In-laws submitted that the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet submitted by the Investigation Officer is illegal and non-application of judicial mind.
It is also submitted that though the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law are women, yet chargesheet was submitted against them for the offense under Section 376 and 377 of IPC, and the concerned magistrate while taking cognizance of the chargesheet did not take into account this fact and took cognizance for the aforesaid offenses against them also.
The advocate referred to the conclusion part of the chargesheet and submitted that earlier on 02.03.2016, one application was moved by the wife at the Women's Police Station, and the present F.I.R. was lodged on 17.03.2016 for the offense under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act specifying the date of offense as 15.03.2016.
It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned against the Maternal Uncle-in-law, but the concerned magistrate without going through the evidence collected by the Investigation officer during the investigation took cognizance against him also for all offenses mentioned in the chargesheet.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
It is also submitted that there is a contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement of the wife recorded under Section 164 CrPC regarding the role of Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Brother-in-law.
The advocate referred to the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the wife recorded under Section 164 CrPC and submitted that it appears improbable and unbelievable that the mother-in-law being a lady will permit the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife.
Furthermore, it is stated that offenses leveled against the In-laws are not attracted in the present matter, and it is improbable and unbelievable that the sister-in-law, who had to go to her In-law's house would have committed the present offense.
It is also stated that the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet in the matter is illegal, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, the victim/ informant has changed her version from stage to stage and No prima facie case is made out.
It is also submitted that there is a contradiction in the F.I.R. and the statement of the wife recorded under Section 164 CrPC regarding the role of Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Brother-in-law.
The advocate referred to the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the wife recorded under Section 164 CrPC and submitted that it appears improbable and unbelievable that the mother-in-law being a lady will permit the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife.
Furthermore, it is stated that offenses leveled against the In-laws are not attracted in the present matter, and it is improbable and unbelievable that the sister-in-law, who had to go to her In-law's house would have committed the present offense.
It is also stated that the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet in the matter is illegal, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, the victim/ informant has changed her version from stage to stage and No prima facie case is made out.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
It is further stated that if the entire prosecution case as a whole is taken into consideration, then also In-laws could not be benefitted from any such demand, and it is also submitted that the F.I.R. lodged on 17.03.2016 is the second F.I.R for the same set of facts as on the basis of same facts an application was moved on 02.03.2016. Hence, the entire proceeding adhered to on the basis of F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 is vitiated.
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of F.I.R and the Chargesheet against the In-laws.
On the other hand, the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife as well as the AGA appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order taking cognizance in the matter warranting interference by the court. And all the In-laws committed the present offense, and specific allegations have been leveled against them.
It is further submitted that in the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the wife has clearly and categorically supported the prosecution case and offense under Section 376 of IPC against the father-in-law, offense under section 377 of IPC against the husband, and other offenses leveled in the chargesheet are attracted against all other In-laws.
Therefore, it is prayed that there is no sufficient reason to quash the F.I.R. and the Chargesheet against the In-laws.
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
- Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Harihar Singh
- T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala
- State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
It is stated that it is evident from the record on 02.03.2016 an application was moved by the wife before the Women's Police Station, mentioning therein that NCR was lodged, but no action was taken.
It is also stated that if the contents of the F.I.R. in which the chargesheet was submitted are taken into consideration, it emerges that the date of offense disclosed in the F.I.R. is different from the date of offense disclosed in the aforesaid application.
It is further stated that the allegations leveled in regard to the offense under Section 498A of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act in the said application and also in the F.I.R. are concerned, merely on the basis that an application dated 02.03.2016 was already moved by the wife, chargesheet submitted in the F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 cannot be quashed. It is also clarified that on the basis of the application dated 02.03.2016 neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor an investigation was conducted.
Furthermore, the court stated that if the role assigned to the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law in the F.I.R. is taken into consideration, it is evident that though in the F.I.R. specific role was assigned yet in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, general allegations were leveled against them.
It is further stated that if the entire prosecution case as a whole is taken into consideration, then also In-laws could not be benefitted from any such demand, and it is also submitted that the F.I.R. lodged on 17.03.2016 is the second F.I.R for the same set of facts as on the basis of same facts an application was moved on 02.03.2016. Hence, the entire proceeding adhered to on the basis of F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 is vitiated.
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of F.I.R and the Chargesheet against the In-laws.
On the other hand, the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife as well as the AGA appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order taking cognizance in the matter warranting interference by the court. And all the In-laws committed the present offense, and specific allegations have been leveled against them.
It is further submitted that in the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the wife has clearly and categorically supported the prosecution case and offense under Section 376 of IPC against the father-in-law, offense under section 377 of IPC against the husband, and other offenses leveled in the chargesheet are attracted against all other In-laws.
Therefore, it is prayed that there is no sufficient reason to quash the F.I.R. and the Chargesheet against the In-laws.
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
- Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Harihar Singh
- T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala
- State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
It is stated that it is evident from the record on 02.03.2016 an application was moved by the wife before the Women's Police Station, mentioning therein that NCR was lodged, but no action was taken.
It is also stated that if the contents of the F.I.R. in which the chargesheet was submitted are taken into consideration, it emerges that the date of offense disclosed in the F.I.R. is different from the date of offense disclosed in the aforesaid application.
It is further stated that the allegations leveled in regard to the offense under Section 498A of IPC and section 3/ 4 of the D.P. Act in the said application and also in the F.I.R. are concerned, merely on the basis that an application dated 02.03.2016 was already moved by the wife, chargesheet submitted in the F.I.R. dated 17.03.2016 cannot be quashed. It is also clarified that on the basis of the application dated 02.03.2016 neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor an investigation was conducted.
Furthermore, the court stated that if the role assigned to the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law in the F.I.R. is taken into consideration, it is evident that though in the F.I.R. specific role was assigned yet in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, general allegations were leveled against them.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
The Sisters-in-law of the wife are unmarried, and it is improbable and unbelievable that they would have been involved in causing cruelty, harassment, and beating to the wife, and allegation in this respect against them appears to have been leveled only because they are relatives of the husband of the wife.
It is also stated that the demand for the additional dowry could not be attributed to the sisters-in-law, as they could not take direct benefit from the demand for the said dowry. No specific role has been leveled against them in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, hence the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against the sisters-in-law is bad in law.
As far as the role of the Mother-in-law is concerned, the allegations in the F.I.R. against her are that she was assisting the husband of the wife to commit aforesaid offenses against the wife. The order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against her is also a non-application of judicial mind, and it is out of imagination that a mother-in-law would have instigated the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife.
It is further stated that as far as the role assigned to the Maternal Uncle-in-law is concerned, it is evident that neither the wife has leveled an allegation against him for the offense under Section 376 and 377 of IPC, nor he is the family member of the husband of the wife. It appears that the chargesheet against him was submitted on the basis of insufficient evidence and only on account of the relative of the husband of the wife.
The Sisters-in-law of the wife are unmarried, and it is improbable and unbelievable that they would have been involved in causing cruelty, harassment, and beating to the wife, and allegation in this respect against them appears to have been leveled only because they are relatives of the husband of the wife.
It is also stated that the demand for the additional dowry could not be attributed to the sisters-in-law, as they could not take direct benefit from the demand for the said dowry. No specific role has been leveled against them in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, hence the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against the sisters-in-law is bad in law.
As far as the role of the Mother-in-law is concerned, the allegations in the F.I.R. against her are that she was assisting the husband of the wife to commit aforesaid offenses against the wife. The order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against her is also a non-application of judicial mind, and it is out of imagination that a mother-in-law would have instigated the husband to commit the offense of rape against the wife.
It is further stated that as far as the role assigned to the Maternal Uncle-in-law is concerned, it is evident that neither the wife has leveled an allegation against him for the offense under Section 376 and 377 of IPC, nor he is the family member of the husband of the wife. It appears that the chargesheet against him was submitted on the basis of insufficient evidence and only on account of the relative of the husband of the wife.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
The maternal uncle-in-law is also not beneficiary of the alleged demand for additional dowry, nor has caused a marpeet with the wife. Hence, the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against him is also the result of the non-application of the judicial mind.
The court further stated that as far as husband and father and brother-in-law are concerned, specific roles have been assigned against them and the said allegations are supported by the wife in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as by medical evidence, hence they will face trial for the said offenses and there is no justification for quashing the proceeding against them.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that the applications are liable to be allowed in part and the proceedings in respect of the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law are liable to be quashed. And accordingly, applications are allowed.
Therefore, entire proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. under sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504, 307 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of D.P. Act at the police station, district Aligarh as well as the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 16.05.2016 against the Mother-in-law and Sisters-in-law are quashed.
_________________________________________________
The maternal uncle-in-law is also not beneficiary of the alleged demand for additional dowry, nor has caused a marpeet with the wife. Hence, the order taking cognizance of the chargesheet against him is also the result of the non-application of the judicial mind.
The court further stated that as far as husband and father and brother-in-law are concerned, specific roles have been assigned against them and the said allegations are supported by the wife in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as well as by medical evidence, hence they will face trial for the said offenses and there is no justification for quashing the proceeding against them.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that the applications are liable to be allowed in part and the proceedings in respect of the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law are liable to be quashed. And accordingly, applications are allowed.
Therefore, entire proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. under sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504, 307 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of D.P. Act at the police station, district Aligarh as well as the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 16.05.2016 against the Mother-in-law and Sisters-in-law are quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
In this article, Allahabad High Court held that no specific role has been leveled against them in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, hence the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet against the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law and Maternal Uncle-in-law is bad in law.
On the basis of the application dated 02.03.2016 neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor an investigation was conducted, general allegations were leveled against them and the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet against them is also the result of the non-application of judicial mind.
It was also held that the applications are liable to be allowed in part and the proceedings in respect of the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law are liable to be quashed. And accordingly, applications are allowed.
Therefore, the F.I.R. against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgement 16.10.2019
In this article, Allahabad High Court held that no specific role has been leveled against them in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, hence the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet against the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law and Maternal Uncle-in-law is bad in law.
On the basis of the application dated 02.03.2016 neither the F.I.R. was lodged nor an investigation was conducted, general allegations were leveled against them and the order taking cognizance on the chargesheet against them is also the result of the non-application of judicial mind.
It was also held that the applications are liable to be allowed in part and the proceedings in respect of the Mother-in-law, Sisters-in-law, and Maternal Uncle-in-law are liable to be quashed. And accordingly, applications are allowed.
Therefore, the F.I.R. against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment