498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020- Brother-in-Law living separately, having no specific role in the complaint will not be implicated in the case. C. Case Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020 |
498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020-In this article, the Calcutta High Court held that there is no specific role in the complaint against the brother-in-law, and at no point in time the brother-in-law was physically present when the incidents of torture had taken place. The brother-in-law was never residing or sharing the same house or home where the wife alleged that the offenses relating to physical and mental torture has taken place, and further continuance of the proceedings against the brother-in-law would be an abuse of the process of law and would result in the miscarriage of Justice. Therefore, the Criminal Proceedings against the brother-in-law are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
According to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized on 18.04.1987 according to Hindu traditions, rites, and customs.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife went to her matrimonial home and started residing with her husband and other members of the family, and after a few years of marriage, a girl child was born out of the said wedlock.
It is also stated that the husband and In-laws on different pleas and pretexts used to inflict torture upon the wife since the inception of marriage and often used to taunt the wife regarding the articles given by her parents at the time of the marriage.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
It is further stated that the husband often used to demand money, and lastly, he demanded a sum of Rs. Thirty Thousand from the wife’s father and other In-laws were used to instigate the husband for demanding such cash money.
It is also stated that the husband misbehaved with the wife and insulted her parents and other family members, also the husband often used to go to the office of the wife’s father and made unusual demands, and he used to inflict physical torture upon the wife on the issue of demand of money.
Accordion to the wife, the brother-in-law was residing in Baguihati and though he was not physically present, he used to advise the husband and the husband used to act according to the advice of the brother-in-law.
Case Brief- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
It is also stated by the wife that her husband did not take care of her or her daughter and admitted the daughter to a school in Calcutta. The wife several times attempted to enter her matrimonial home, but she was refused entry, and finally, the husband filed a divorce suit against her.
Furthermore, it is stated that the wife after repeated attempts had been successful to meet with her daughter at her hostel, and according to the wife, the husband, brother-in-law, and other accused In-laws have retained the wife’s stridhan properties and are unwilling to hand over the same.
Upon this, the wife filed the complaint at the Police Station, Tamluk under Sections 498A & 406 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the brother-in-law and three other In-laws, and the Complaint case is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
_________________________________________________
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
The advocate appearing on behalf of the brother-in-law submitted that it is an admitted position that the brother-in-law being the elder brother of the husband was staying at Calcutta, and the cause of action, according to the wife, arose within the jurisdiction of Tamluk.
It is also submitted that except for certain stray narration, no specific role or overact has been described of the brother-in-law, and the crux of the allegations is related to physical, and cruelty, and retention of stridhan properties which are primarily alleged against the husband.
It is further submitted that the statement under Section 200 of CrPC recorded by the Magistrate in respect of the wife, and her father and in the said statement both the witnesses did not refer to the brother-in-law or any role attributed to him in respect of the offenses alleged off.
Arguments- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
It is also submitted that the complaint was filed almost after 16 years of marriage and at a time when the divorce was pending before the civil court.
Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the complaint case against the Brother-in-law.
_________________________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
- Swapnil Vs. The state of M.P.
- Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
It is stated by the court that the brother-in-law has been residing in Calcutta since 1975 with the wife and a son, and taking into account the allegations made in the complaint it is an admitted fact that at no point in time the brother-in-law was physically present when the incidents of torture had taken place, which raises doubt regarding the complexity of the brother-in-law as far as the allegations made in the complaint.
It is also stated that it is an accepted position in the complaint itself that the brother-in-law was never residing or sharing the same house or home where the wife alleged that the offenses relating to physical and mental torture have taken place.
It is further stated by the court that as far as the entrustment of stridhan articles of the wife is concerned, the same has been with the husband, and the demand for money as alleged was also attributed to the husband, and the brother-in-law’s role was never detailed except once for the purpose of abetment.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
The court also stated that the present proceedings were initiated at a stage when the daughter of the wife was 10 years old, and the marriage was subsisting for 16 years.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that the allegations made in the complaint and also the examination of the wife and her father under Section 200 of CrPC, the court is of opinion that further continuance of the proceedings against the brother-in-law would be an abuse of the process of law and would result in the miscarriage of Justice.
Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk against the brother-in-law are hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash Judgment 21.02.2020
In this article, the Calcutta High Court held that the brother-in-law was never residing or sharing the same house or home where the wife alleged that the offenses relating to physical and mental torture has taken place.
It is also held that the further continuance of the proceedings against the brother-in-law would be an abuse of the process of law and would result in the miscarriage of Justice.
Therefore, the Complaint Case against the Brother-in-law is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment