498aQuash Judgments-Latest judgments 2019 quashed against Mother-in-Law, Sister-in-Laws, Brother-in-Laws, Relatives of Husband on general, omnibus, nonspecific allegations by Various High Courts.
 |
| 498a,How to fight 498a-ApaizersMensRights-498a Quash Judgments |
Allahabad High Court: Rajni And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2019:- 498A Case quashed against Mother-in-Law, two Sister-in-Laws and One Mama-in-Law on the grounds no specific allegations against them.
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
So far as the role assigned to applicant Gopal, who is mamiya sasur of opposite party no.2, is concerned, it is evident that that neither victim has levelled allegation against him for the offence under Sections 376 and 377 IPC nor he is the family member of the husband of victim. It appears that charge sheet against him was submitted on the basis of insufficient evidence and only on account of relative of husband of opposite party no.2. He is also not beneficiary of the alleged demand of additional dowry nor has caused marpeet with the victim. Hence, order taking cognizance on the charge sheet against him is also the result of non-application of judicial mind.
As regards role assigned against applicant Rajni, mother in law of opposite party no.2, is concerned, allegation in the F.I.R. against her is that she was assisting her husband to commit aforesaid offences against victim. When complaint was made to her by the victim, she extended threat. If statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC and other evidence available on record are taken into consideration in light of submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the settled legal position, certainly, the order taking cognizance on the charge sheet against her is also non-application of judicial mind. It is out of imagination that a wife (mother in law) would have instigated her husband to commit offence of rape against her daughter in law.
……… xxxxxx
The entire proceedings of case no. 367 of 2016, arising out of
case crime no. 128 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 376, 377, 323, 504, 307 IPC and
3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Iglas, district Aligarh pending before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh as well as the order of cognizance and
summoning order dated 16.5.2016 against the applicants Rajni, Gunjan, Rekha and
Gopal are quashed.
You can contact for legal consultation or advice by
You can contact for legal consultation or advice by
|
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
Karnataka High Court: Vinay Narayana Pandith vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2019:- 498A Case quashed against Maternal aunts of Husband, one employee of husband and One non-relative on the grounds no specific instance of cruelty against the Wife.
The
very fact that she has come up with general and omnibus allegations against
the petitioners, that too after service of notice in the matrimonial
proceedings indicates that the allegations are concocted and created only to
foist a false case against the petitioners. The second respondent has not
narrated any specific instance of cruelty attracting the ingredients of Section498A of IPC or 506 of IPC. In order to constitute cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498A, the victim should be subjected to cruelty as
defined under the said section. The evidence on record does not satisfy the
requirements of Section498A or 506 of IPC. The allegations
regarding the demand and payment of dowry is directed only against Accused
No.1. There is no material whatsoever to show that Accused Nos.2 and 3 either
demanded any dowry from Respondent No.2 or that any portion of the dowry amount
was paid into their hands. On the other hand, the allegation against the
petitioners 2 and 3 / accused Nos.2 and 3 are that they did not allow
Respondent No.2 to consummate the marriage with Accused No.1 There is no
material to substantiate this allegation. The circumstances narrated in the
complaint go to show that within ten days after the marriage, Accused No.1
himself had left to Delhi. There is nothing on record to show that
thereafter Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 lived together as husband and wife.
Under the said circumstances, Accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held responsible
for non- consummation of the marriage of the second respondent. Further,
Accused Nos.4 and 5 not being members of the family of Respondent No.2 and
Accused No.1, the charge under Section498A cannot be sustained
against Accused Nos.4 and 5.
8.
Thus, taking into consideration the entire gamut of the allegations made in the
complaint, in my view, the material on record is not sufficient to make out
prima facie the ingredients of the offences in so far as Accused Nos.2 to 5 are
concerned. However, in so far as Accused No.1 is concerned, the material on
record is sufficient to make out the ingredients of the above offences. Hence,
the following order:
Petition
is allowed in part. Petition filed by Petitioner No.1
-
Accused No.1 is dismissed. The petition filed by Petitioners 2 to 5 - Accused
Nos.2 to 5 is allowed. The proceedings initiated in C.C.No.20182/2016 on the
file of III ACMM, Bangalore are quashed in so far as Accused Nos.2 to 5 are
concerned. The Trial Court shall proceed only against Accused No.1 - Vinay
Narayana Pandith, in accordance with law.
|
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Smt.Sapna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 September,2019:- 498A Case quashed against two Married Sister-in-Laws on the grounds no specific allegations against them and never resided with complainant.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for
the petitioners that both the petitioners are sisters-in-law of the complainant
and they are residing separately. Both are married long back and marriage
of the complainant was performed in the year 2018. The present petitioners had
never resided with the complainant. It is submitted by counsel for the
petitioners that vague and omnibus allegations have been made against all the
family members of the husband of-( 3 )- MCRC No. 21366/2019 (Smt. Sapna &
Anr. Vs.State of MP & Anr.) the complainant, therefore, there is no prima
facie evidence against the petitioners so as to compel them to face the ordeal
of trial. It is settled principle of law that if the FIR did not disclose the
commission of offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings
in order to prevent the abuse of process of law. A false report has been lodged
by the complainant/respondent No.2 and on the basis of which the proceedings
instituted against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
4.
In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decisions
rendered in Sabir Hussain and others Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (2017(2)
M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 658 and Keshav Singh Tomar and others Vs. State of M.P. &
Anr. (2017(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 566.
10. In view of above, it appears
that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is an abuse of the
process of court and therefore, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & ors. [1992 (1) SCC
335], this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing crime No.
19/2019 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior alleging
offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential criminal proceedings so far
as it relates to the petitioners.
11. Resultantly, the petition filed
under Section 482 of CrPC is hereby allowed and the FIR bearing crime
No. 19/2019 registered at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior alleging
offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and pending Case No.482/2019 in the Court of JMFC,
Gwalior are hereby quashed.
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
You can contact for legal consultation or advice by
discussing with me Contact now
|
Madras High Court: Vijay Noble vs The Inspector Of Police on 17 September, 2019:- 498A Case quashed against Sister-in-Laws, husband of Sister-in-Law, Brother-in-law and One uncle of husband on the grounds no specific allegations and are general in nature against them.
This
criminal original petition is allowed as regards A4, A5, A6, A7.
|
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
Karnataka
High Court: SmtHemalatha A C vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2019:- 498A Case quashed
against Mother-in-Law on the grounds no specific allegations against them.
8.
Insofar as the allegations under Sections 498A and 506 of
IPC are concerned, on going through the charge sheet papers, it is seen that
the case of the prosecution is that two months after the marriage, respondent
No.2 was ill-treated and harassed in the matrimonial home. The complainant has
not narrated any specific instance of cruelty meted out to her by
the petitioner nor has the investigating agency collected any material to
show that respondent No.2 was ill treated in the matrimonial home. On the other
hand, the material allegations are confined to the demand alleged to have been
made by accused Nos.1 and 2 for expansion of business. If accused Nos.1 and 2
were interested to get money from respondent No.2 for the purpose of expansion
of business, it is highly improbable that they would subject her to cruelty.
Thus, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I am of
the view that the material on record is not sufficient to make out an offence
under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC against the petitioner
herein.
10.
In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet and FIR dated
10.06.2019 and the entire proceedings in C.C No.9063/2016 pending on the file
of the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Benglauru are
quashed.
[ Read 498A Quash Judgments]
|
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment