498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005 -Allegation against husband & In-laws do constitute an offense alleged but no evidence in support of case. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005 |
498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005- In this article, the High Court held that there was no demand for dowry and the wife was never subjected to any kind of harassment for the demand of dowry by the husband and In-laws, and the complaint has been filed only with a view to causing harassment to the husband and his family members. The continuation of the proceedings against the husband and In-laws is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the Criminal proceedings against the husband and In-laws are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
According to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed by the father of the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized on 17.05.1989 according to the Hindu Rites.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife came to her marital house and performed all her marital obligations and one son was born in the year 1991 from the wedlock of the wife and her husband, and till 31.08.1997 the husband and wife lived happily with a son born out from their wedlock.
It is also stated that the husband was running a factory of Cosmetics in Delhi which was doing good business till the year 1995, but thereafter the factory suffered a huge loss and as a consequence, the business was shut down, and at this point in time on account of interference by parents-in-law and other family members, relations between the wife and husband became sour and the wife left her matrimonial house on 27.08.1997.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
It is further stated that according to the husband and In-laws, continuous efforts were made on their part to bring back the wife to her marital home, and on one or two occasions, the wife did come back but just for a short period and thereafter she left her In-law's house on one pretext or the other.
It is also stated that according to the wife, after the closing of the factory, the In-laws started making demands for dowry, and it was after 8 years of marriage, and since the wife was unable to fulfill the demand of Rs. One lakh, it led to the institution of criminal proceedings.
The husband and In-laws had already given information in the Police Station, Delhi on 01.09.1997 informing about the threats extended to them by the wife and her father that they will ensure that the entire family members are implicated in criminal cases.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
Furthermore, it is stated that a notice sent by the wife to the husband was received on 18.01.1998 and the husband was called upon to take the wife back otherwise necessary consequences will ensue.
Later proceedings for divorce were initiated on 31.03.1998 and a divorce petition was filed in Civil court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the divorce petition shows that false and frivolous allegations were leveled against all the family members of the husband to make out a ground for divorce.
Upon this, the father of the wife filed the instant criminal complaint on 05.05.1998 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family members, and the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC were recorded.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
The magistrate, Aligarh summoned the husband and In-laws under Section 498A and 506 of IPC by the order dated 04.07.1998. The husband and In-laws appeared before the magistrate and filed a review petition for reviewing the summoning order, but the review petition was rejected.
Later, an application for maintenance was also filed by the wife under Section 125 of CrPC which was dismissed in default and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the husband and In-laws, denying all the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of this application and a rejoinder affidavit, was also filed.
Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the husband and the In-laws with a view to bringing on record the original summoning order, and also the final judgment decree dated 23.03.2002 passed by the Civil Court.
_________________________________________________
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 27.05.2005
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband and In-laws submitted that the complaint filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is only a frivolous complaint with a view to causing harassment to the husband and In-laws and though it has been stated in the complaint that the wife was beaten by the In-laws, there is no injury report on record as no injuries were examined, which shows the falsity of the entire allegations.
It is also submitted that the filing of the complaint is only a result of the threat extended earlier, regarding which, information was given to the police by the mother-in-law on 01.09.1997.
It is further submitted that prior to the lodging of the complaint, the divorce petition was instituted on the ground of cruelty on 31.03.1998 which is two and half months before the criminal complaint was filed.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
It is also submitted that in the judgment dated 23.03.2002 in the divorce petition, the part of the judgment emphasized that the wife and the father of the wife were examined as witnesses in the divorce petition and at no point of time any dowry was demanded directly from the father of the wife, and he came to know about it only through the wife.
Furthermore, the advocate stated that there was no demand for dowry either at the time of the wedding or before the wedding, and whatever gifts were given in the marriage, were the sweet will of the family members of the wife.
Also, the divorce petition which was instituted by the wife on the ground of cruelty was dismissed, holding that in fact she was never subjected to any cruelty, and on the contrary, the husband was subjected to the cruelty at the hands of the wife and in these circumstances, the divorce petition was dismissed and notices were issued in the application to the father of the wife and an interim order was granted.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
It is also stated that the husband and In-laws were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000 per month through a bank draft to the wife and nothing has come in the counter affidavit that the payment in pursuance of the order dated 08.01.2003 is not being made.
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of the FIR filed by the father of the wife against the husband and In-laws.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgments- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
- Sarla Prbhakar Vaghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra
- State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Chaudhary Bhutan Lal
- R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
It is stated that the court will proceed to examine whether the complaint filed against the husband and In-laws can be quashed in the exercise of inherent power or not.
It is also stated that the complaint has been lodged on 05.05.1998, but the wife, without mentioning any date, has leveled the allegation of dowry against the husband and In-laws, and one of the allegations is that on 24.04.1998, the In-laws came to the house of the wife and demanded one lakh rupees from her family members.
It is further stated that the wife stated in the complaint that the threat and demand were extended to her on the date when the In-laws visited the house of the wife to take back the wife. The same allegations have been repeated in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, but there is no injury report on record.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
It is also stated that the allegation in the divorce petition spells out an entirely different story and the judgment has been brought on record by the means of a supplementary affidavit in the divorce petition containing the evidence of the wife.
The denial before the divorce court was given by the wife on oath and the court has come to the conclusion that there was no demand for dowry and the wife was never subjected to any kind of harassment for the demand of dowry by the husband and In-laws.
The court also stated that there is no question of any inquiry or recording of any evidence on the face of clear admission of the complaint in the divorce case.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
The court further stated that the court has gone through the entire records as well as a supplementary affidavit and the court feels that this is one of those cases in which the complaint has been filed by the wife only with a view to causing harassment to the husband and his family members and to even the scores.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that it is a gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498A of IPC, which certainly pricks the judicial conscience and can not be left to stand, and the court is in agreement with the advocate appearing on behalf of the husband and In-laws that the continuation of the proceedings on the basis of the complaint impugned in this application, is nothing but an abuse of process of the court and is liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the complaint instituted by the father of the wife is a frivolous one and is hereby quashed and the interim order directing for payment of Rs. 2,000 to the wife by the husband and In-laws is also discharged.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgment 27.05.2005
In this article, the High Court held that there was no demand for dowry and the wife was never subjected to any kind of harassment for the demand of dowry and there is no question of any inquiry or recording of any evidence on the face of clear admission of the complaint in the divorce case.
It is also held that the proceedings against the husband and In-laws are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and are liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the FIR against the husband and In-laws is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment