498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018-Trial Court can not summon additional accused in the absence of new evidence, Summoning Order quashed against In-laws.
 |
| 498a Quash Judgment 21.08.2018 |
498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018- In this article, Punjab High Court held that Trial Court can not summon additional accused in the absence of new evidence, the order summoning the In-laws as the additional accused does not show due application of mind. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order summoning the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and her husband as additional accused and the order dismissing the revision petition challenging such order are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the summoning order against the In-laws is hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
According to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed by the wife, after the marriage between the wife and her husband, the wife started to live in her matrimonial home with her husband.
It is stated that the In-laws and the husband of the wife demanded dowry from the wife, and they harassed and maltreated the wife on account of the demand for dowry and committed cruelty against her.
Upon this, the wife filed the complaint against her husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law, and husband of the sister-in-law on the allegations of committing the offense of fraud, cheating, demand of dowry, cruelty, harassment, misappropriation of dowry article and an offense of adultery against the husband.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
On the basis of the complaint, an FIR dated 02.09.2018 was registered at the Police Station, district Panchkula under Sections 406/ 498A of IPC against her husband, father-in-law, sister, and the husband of sister-in-law.
After the completion of the investigation, only the husband was challaned whereas the In-laws were found to be innocent. The trial against the husband proceeded, during the course of which the wife moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for the summoning of the father-in-law, sister–in–law, and the husband of the sister-in-law as additional accused.
By the order dated 07.08.2015 the application was accepted. The father-in-law challenged the order by way of filing a revision petition, however, that revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 18.09.2015.
Against the order dated 18.09.2015, the father-in-law has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC.
_________________________________________________
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 21.08.2018
The advocate appearing on behalf of the father-in-law submitted that the father-in-law is a widower, aged about 75 years, and he has retired from Industries Department, Chandigarh as Superintendent, and thereafter has been residing at Ellanabad, district Sirsa, whereas the wife and her husband was employed as Senior Consultants in MNC at Noida and they both shifted to Noida in the husband’s place.
It is also submitted that it was a second marriage for both the wife and her husband. The wife and husband could not live together, so the husband had filed a petition for divorce against the wife on 08.07.2013, and immediately on receipt of the summons, in that case, the wife lodged the present FIR under Sections 406/ 498A of IPC on 02.09.2013 involving her father-in-law, husband, sister-in-law and the husband of sister-in-law. The sister-in-law and her husband are permanently settled in New Zealand.
It is submitted that the marriage between the wife and her husband was a simple affair for the reason that it was a second marriage for both spouses, the expenses were shared by both families and both the wife and the father of the wife had made statements with regard to non giving or taking of dowry before the Registrar.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
It is further submitted that after the marriage, the wife had started misbehaving with her husband; that a detailed inquiry had been conducted by Inspector from Crime Against Women Cell, in Panchkula who had submitted the report finding that the father-in-law had been residing separately at Ellanabad, Sirsa whereas the wife had been residing at Pinjore during her pregnancy.
It is also submitted that the father-in-law neither harassed nor maltreated the wife on account of the demand for dowry. After registration of the FIR, a detailed investigation was carried out and a challan was presented only against the husband whereas the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and her husband were found to be innocent, and the FIR was lodged with malafide intention.
Therefore, he prayed that the summoning order of the father-in-law while allowing petition under Section 319 CrPC is liable to be quashed.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
On the other hand, the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife submitted that no ground for quashing of FIR and summoning order is made out.
Therefore, it is prayed for the dismissal of the petition and for not quashing of the summoning order against the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and the husband of the sister-in-law.
_________________________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
- Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others
- Smt. Sushil Soni Vs. State of Haryana and others
- Hukam Chand and another Vs. state of Haryana and another
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case has observed that for summoning the person as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC there should be more than a prima facie case.
In the present case, the order summoning the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and the husband of the sister-in-law as additional accused does not show due application of mind. The trial court has not mentioned anywhere what new evidence was there before it except one which had already been considered by the investigating agency, giving a clean chit to the In-laws.
Similarly, the order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge is devoted to discussing various authorities on the subject without pointing out as to how those authorities are applicably justifying the summoning of the In-law as an additional accused.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
It is a well-settled principle that the court cannot summon the accused on the basis of the statement alone, which was already considered by the police and for summoning under Section 319 of CrPC there has to be some evidence that would indicate complicity of the persons who sought to be summoned.
The court held that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order summoning the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and her husband as additional accused and order dismissing the revision petition challenging such order are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the petition is accepted and all the summoning orders with ancillary proceedings are quashed against the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and the husband of the sister-in-law.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.08.2018
In this article, the Punjab High Court held that the order summoning the father-in-law as an additional accused does not show due application of mind.
It also held that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order summoning the father-in-law as an additional accused and the order dismissing the revision petition challenging such an order are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the summoning order against the father-in-law, sister-in-law, and the husband of the sister-in-law is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment