498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019- Karnataka High Court - General Allegations against the Aunts-in-law and Other two people. F.I.R Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019 |
498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019- In this article, Karnataka High Court held that the wife has come up with the general and omnibus allegations against the Aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family, and she has not narrated any specific instance of cruelty attracting the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC or 506 of IPC. The material on record is not sufficient to make out prima facie the ingredients of the offenses in so far as Aunts-in-law, husband’s employee and a known person to the husband’s family are concerned. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against them are quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the FIR filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized on 08.11.2015.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife was ill-treated and harassed in her matrimonial home.
It is also stated that at the time of engagement, the wife was forced to change her name.
Case Brief- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
It is further stated that after the marriage, the Aunts-in-law of the wife did not allow the marriage to consummate as they put a condition that unless the wife was able to establish a balanced relationship with them, they would not allow the wife to consummate the marriage.
Furthermore, it is also stated that as and when the husband’s employee and a known person to the husband’s family were coming to the house of the husband, at the instance of the Aunts-in-law, they used to abuse and assault the wife.
Upon this, the wife filed the FIR at the Police Station, Bangalore for the offense punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband, Aunts-in-law, an employee of the husband, and a known person to the husband’s family. 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 after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband, the Aunts-in-law, the husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family submitted that the complaint was filed only after service of the notice issued by the wife for the dissolution of the marriage.
It is also submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of the alleged offenses.
It is further submitted that the wife hardly stayed in the matrimonial home.
Arguments- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
The advocate also stated that the employee of the husband and a known person to the husband’s family are not members of the family of the wife and husband and as such, the charge under Section 498A cannot stand against the employee of the husband and a known person to the husband’s family.
Furthermore, it was stated that there are no allegations whatsoever against the Aunts-in-law attracting the offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Under the said circumstances, the case launched against the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of the court.
Arguments- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of F.I.R. and the Criminal proceedings against the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family.
On the other hand, the HCGP appearing on behalf of the State argued in the support of the impugned proceedings, contending that the material produced along with the chargesheet prima facie disclose the commission of the offenses by the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family.
Therefore, it is prayed that there is no reason to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioners.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
It is stated that a reading of the allegations made in the chargesheet reveals that the wife stayed in the home hardly for ten days and, according to the wife, the marriage itself was not consummated.
It also reveals the very fact that the wife has come up with the general and omnibus allegations against the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family.
It is also stated that the allegations made after service of the notice in the matrimonial proceedings indicate that the allegations are concocted and created only to foist a false case against the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known member to the husband’s family.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
It is further stated that the wife has not narrated any specific instance of cruelty attracting the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC or 506 of IPC.
It is also stated that in order to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A, the victim should be subjected to cruelty as defined under the said section.
In the present case, the evidence on record does not satisfy the requirements of Section 498A or 506 of IPC. The allegations regarding the demand and payment of dowry are directed only against the husband.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
As far as Aunts-in-law is concerned, there is no material whatsoever to show that Aunts-in-law either demanded any dowry from the wife or that any portion of the dowry amount was paid into their hands.
On the other hand, the allegation against the Aunts-in-law is that they did not allow the wife to consummate the marriage with the husband, there is no material to substantiate this allegation.
Furthermore, it is stated that the circumstances narrated in the complaint go to show that within ten days after the marriage, the husband himself had left for Delhi and there is nothing on record to show that thereafter the husband and the wife lived together as husband and wife.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
It is also stated that under the said circumstances, Aunts-in-law cannot be held responsible for non-consummation of the marriage of the wife.
The husband’s employee and a known person to the husband’s family, are not members of the family of the wife and her husband, therefore the chargesheet under Section 498A cannot be sustained against them.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that as far as the husband is concerned, the material on record is sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offenses, and therefore, the petition filed by the husband is dismissed.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
It was also held that taking into consideration the entire gamut of the allegations made in the complaint, the material on record is not sufficient to make out prima facie the ingredients of the offenses in so far as Aunts-in-law, husband’s employee and a known person to the husband’s family are concerned.
Therefore, the petition filed by the Aunts-in-law, the husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family is allowed, and the proceedings initiated against them are quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 20.09.2019
In this article, Karnataka High Court held that the material on record is not sufficient to make out prima facie the ingredients of the offenses in so far as Aunts-in-law, husband’s employee and a known person to the husband’s family are concerned.
It was also held that reading of the allegations made in the chargesheet reveals that the wife has not narrated any specific instance of cruelty, and she has come up with the general and omnibus allegations against the husband, aunts-in-law, husband’s employee, and a known person to the husband’s family.
Therefore, the F.I.R. against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment