498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019- Plea of Wife dismissed on Discharging Cousin Father-in-law Living Separately with General allegation of dowry demand.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019 |
498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019- In this article, the High Court held that the cousin father-in-law is residing separately, and no specific allegation has been attributed to him either of demand or subjecting the wife to cruelty. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and allowing the criminal proceedings against the cousin father-in-law who is a distant relative of the husband as it will only lead to his harassment. Therefore, the Criminal Proceedings against the Cousin Father-in-law are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
According to the facts mentioned in the FIR filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized in the year 2015 according to Hindu rites and customs.
It is stated that at the time of the marriage, the father of the wife gave a huge amount of cash and ornaments, and at the time of the tilak ceremony also a huge amount of cash and articles were also given, and the cousin father-in-law received the money and all the articles as the father of the husband had died prior to the marriage.
It is also stated that after the marriage, the family members of the husband including the cousin father-in-law started pressuring the wife to get her father’s land registered in the name of the husband as she has no brother and for that, she was tortured.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
It is further stated that the wife informed about the same to her father, who tried to solve the matter, but the family members of the husband including the cousin father-in-law tortured the wife and lastly drove her out of the house after snatching ornaments worth five lakhs.
Upon this, the wife filed an FIR at the Police Station against the family members of the husband including the cousin father-in-law, after the inquiry found a prima facie case against the cousin father-in-law and other family members processes were issued.
After the evidence before the charge, a petition was filed by the cousin father-in-law before the Magistrate under Section 245 CrPC for his discharge, which was rejected by the Magistrate by the order dated 15.03.2019.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
Against this, the cousin father-in-law preferred a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge and, after hearing the parties, allowed the Criminal Revision filed by the cousin father-in-law by the order dated 20.09.2019 and the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Magistrate was set aside.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2019, the wife has preferred the present application.
_________________________________________________
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
The advocate appearing on behalf of the wife submitted that Revisional Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record, which is sufficient for framing the charge against the cousin father-in-law as material available on record shows that he is karta of the family and him along with other family members have demanded to transfer the land of the father of the wife.
It is also submitted that on non-fulfillment of the said demand, the wife was subjected to torture and was driven out of the house and the witnesses have also supported the allegation before the charge.
It is further submitted that, at the time of framing of the charge, the Magistrate has only to see the prima facie evidence against the cousin father-in-law, and accordingly the magistrate, finding prima facie evidence against him, disallowed the petition filed by the cousin father-in-law for his discharge, but the Revisional Court, without appreciating the same, has allowed the revision application filed by the cousin father-in-law.
Therefore, he prayed for quashing the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing the criminal revision application filed by the cousin father-in-law.
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgments- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
- Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
It is stated that from the perusal of the impugned order as well as the complaint petition and other materials available on record it appears that no specific allegation has been attributed to the cousin father-in-law either of demand of subjecting the wife to cruelty.
It is also stated that the revisional court considering the fact that there was a demand for the execution of the sale deed and the beneficiary was the husband of the wife and not the cousin father-in-law, who is residing separately, whereas, the husband is working as a constable in the police department and has filed a divorce case also, allowed the revision application filed by the cousin father-in-law and set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Magistrate rejecting his prayer for discharge.
It is further stated that the court is well aware of the fact that the present case arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the wife and her husband and in such cases, there is a tendency to implicate the entire family of the husband only on basis of the general and omnibus allegation, which lead to the situation when there is no hope left for any settlement between the wife and her husband.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
Furthermore, the court stated that the husband of the wife is an independent person and as such, for the acts of the husband, no criminal liability will be on other family members, who are also not directly related to the cousin father-in-law.
Also, no specific allegation of cruelty or subjecting the wife to harassment and even no date or time of such act by the cousin father-in-law has been mentioned in the entire complaint petition, and further, there are no averments in the complaint petition that the cousin father-in-law is residing separately.
It is also stated by the court has to see that the law laid down may not be misused to settle one's previous score and as there are many cases in which the section 498A is used as a tool to implicate the whole family on basis of vague allegations to settle her score due to domestic disputes and also to pressurize other family members.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
In view of the above discussion, the court held that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, as allowing the criminal proceedings against the cousin father-in-law, will only lead to harassment of cousin father-in-law, who is a distant relative of the husband of the wife and same, will also be an abuse of process of the court.
Therefore, the order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is allowed and the FIR against the Cousin Father-in-law is hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgments 20.12.2019
In this article, the High Court held that no specific allegation has been attributed to the cousin father-in-law either of demand or subjecting the wife to cruelty and no specific allegation of cruelty or subjecting the wife to harassment and even no date or time of such act by the cousin father-in-law, has been mentioned in the entire complaint petition.
It is also held that there are no averments in the complaint petition that the cousin father-in-law is residing separately and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Therefore, the FIR against the Cousin Father-in-law is hereby quashed.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment