498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019 - Allahabad High Court held that bald allegation leveled against the family members of husband, Proceedings Quashed
 |
| 498a Quash Judgment 17.10.2019 |
498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019- In this article, the Allahabad High Court held that except for bald allegations leveled against the Four family members of the husband, there is no active participation of the four In-laws in the harassing of the wife for the want of dowry. There are no allegations against the four family members except a casual reference to their names who have been included in the FIR. And they are being harassed by the wife with malafide intentions simply because they are her husband's family members. Therefore, the proceedings against the family members are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized in the year 2003.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife started to live with her husband and his family members in her matrimonial home.
It is also stated that soon after the marriage, a domestic quarrel took place between the wife and her husband and the family members supported the husband.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
It is further stated that the wife was harassed by the family members for want of dowry.
Upon this, the wife filed the F.I.R. under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the police station, District Hathras, against her husband and his family members.
_________________________________________________
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 Judgment 17.10.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband and four family members submitted that the matter of dispute between the wife and her husband was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of the court dated 23.10.2018, but the mediation process has failed and there is no chance of mediation.
It is also submitted that as far as the four family members are concerned, they are the family members of the husband and the allegations leveled against them are wholly vague, and no specific allegation has been leveled against them.
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of F.I.R. and entire criminal proceedings against the husband and his four family members.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
On the other hand, the A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife tried to justify the summoning order passed against the husband and four family members.
Therefore, it is prayed for not quashing the F.I.R. filed by the wife and the entire criminal proceedings against the husband and his four family members.
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
- Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.
- Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
- G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors
- B.S. Joshi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
It has been decided in a case that there is no doubt that the object of introducing chapter XXA containing section 498A in IPC was to prevent the torture of a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. This section was added with a view to punishing the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.
It is also stated that if the case is initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent the woman from settling earlier.
It is further stated that for securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to exercising the power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
It is a well-settled principle that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offense, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings, preventing the abuse of the process of law.
The courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in the matrimonial dispute cases whether the FIR in fact discloses the commission of an offense by the relatives of the main accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of small problems while settling down in her new matrimonial surroundings.
In the present case, the court stated that after perusing the material brought on record, the court finds that so far as the husband is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the impugned order and the proceedings of the case. The prayer to the extent on behalf of the husband is refused.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
The court also stated that, as far as four family members are concerned, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against the four family members except a casual reference to their names who have been included in the FIR.
The court further stated that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in the matrimonial dispute without the allegations of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them, overlooking the fact that there is a tendency to involve entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in matrimonial dispute especially if it happens soon after the wedding.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that from a perusal of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is apparent that except bald allegations leveled against the Four family members of the husband, there is no active participation of these four family members in the harassing of the wife for the want of dowry.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
The court also held that the four family members are being harassed by the wife with malafide intentions simply because they are her husband's family members.
Therefore, the FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at the police station, District Hathras, and criminal proceedings against the four family members are hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgment 17.10.2019
In this article, the Allahabad High Court held that when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against the four family members except a casual reference to their names who have been included in the FIR. And they are being harassed by the wife with malafide intentions simply because they are her husband's family members.
It was also held that except for bald allegations leveled against the Four family members of the husband, there is no active participation of the four In-laws in the harassing of the wife for the want of dowry.
Therefore, the F.I.R. against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment