 |
| 498a quash judgement 22.9.2020 |
498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020 – Allegations does not disclose any offense under 498A
IPC, F.I.R. Quashed.
Read More Judgements on 498a Quash
498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020 – The High Court opined that the allegations in the
complaint and F.I.R. nowhere disclose any ingredients of section 498A IPC
against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant.
Article on 498a Quash Judgement on 22.09.2020 -There
was no demand of any sort alleged in the complaint and no such complaint was
filed by the complainant in regard to any demand and cruelty after the marriage
to any authority.
Moreover
the complainant was living with her mother’s house after the marriage with her
husband and never lived with the In-Laws after the marriage at any point in time.
So the Karnataka High Court in its decision quashed the case against mother-in-law
& two brothers-in-law.
The petition was filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint dated 05.01.2017, entire
proceedings by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Badami for the alleged
offense punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
_______________________________________________________
Read Article on 498A Acquittal Judgment 15.05.2020- Great News! One More family Saved from the 498A IPC Menace.
Brief Facts of the Case: 498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
The
petitioners were two brothers-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant wife. The
husband had married the complainant besides already married to another
female. The brother-in-law and mother-in-law objected to the registration of the second
marriage of the husband and the complainant in front of the registrar but still the
registrar allowed the marriage.
The complainant and the husband resided at the house of the complainant’s mother after
the marriage away from the petitioners. For starting a business and daily
expenses the husband took a loan of Rs.6 lakh and out of that, they purchased a
sound system as the complainant was a stage artist.
The complainant alleged that her in-laws, again and again, visited their house and
threatened her to give divorce to her husband since he was already married. It
was alleged that the husband of the complainant in consensus with her in-laws
had taken the sound system and left her.
The complainant alleged in her complaint that on 16.12.2012 the four persons came
to her house from whom the husband had taken a loan to take the sound system as
her husband had sold the sound system to them and the in-laws again threatened
her to give divorce to her husband and on the basis of which a complaint was
filed and an FIR was registered u/s 498A, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
_______________________________________________________
Read Article on 10 Tips to Counter Claim of Maintenance under Section 125 Crpc. when a wife leaves the husband without any reasonable cause and maintenance can be denied.
Read Article on 10 Tips to Counter Claim of Maintenance under Section 125 Crpc. when a wife leaves the husband without any reasonable cause and maintenance can be denied.
The learned counsel of the in-law's Contention: 498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
Firstly
the in-laws have been unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings by the complainant only to harass and wreak vengeance on the in-laws on account of the
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have filed an objection with the Registrar of
Marriages for the marriage between the husband and the complainant.
Secondly
on the entire reading of the complaint dated 05.01.2017 would not disclose any
offense under the said provisions of 498-A, 504, or 506. There was no cruelty
and or demand for dowry made against the complainant.
Thirdly
there was a delay in filing the complaint when even according to the
complainant, the incident occurred on 16.12.2016, the complaint was filed on
05.01.2017 i.e. nearly after 10 days, hence, the allegations made was an
afterthought, colored with an intention to harass the in-laws.
Fourthly
both the brothers-in-law and husband have already separated and a partition the deed being executed between them and even if there was a loan which has been
obtained by the husband as alleged or otherwise the same was to the account of the husband.
The in-laws cannot be held to be responsible for the same.
Fifth
even as per the allegations in the complaint, the sound system has been taken
by the said husband, it would not be permissible for the complainant and or her
accomplices to demand the return of the sound system from the in-laws.
Sixth,
he submits that there no allegation of theft or the like which has been alleged
against the petitioner, the allegations were only as regards Section 498A, 504,
506. There was no allegation of intimidation made out on the reading of the
entire complaint; hence, neither Section 504 nor 506 were attracted to the
present circumstances.
Seventh
the learned advocate of the in-laws relies on the various decisions of the
courts
1.
Criminal Petition No.200054/2014 dated 11.02.2015 between Amarayya Hiremath and
others Vs. The State of Karnataka.
2.
Criminal Petition No.100128/2015 dated 09.09.2020 between Nagaraj S/o. Ningappa
Ingalagi Vs. The State of Karnataka and another.
3.
Criminal Petition No.101749/2018 dated 10.02.2020 between Smt. Vanishree
Koliwad Vs. The State of Karnataka and another.
4.
Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.562/2007 dated 04.07.2011 between
Bhajan Singh Vs. The state of Haryana.
5.
Raju Timirharan Vs. State of Panjab, dated 29.01.1991.
On
the above basis he submits that the complaint was required to be quashed
insofar as the in-laws were concerned since there were no allegations which
have been made against the in-laws and furthermore, the complaint was filed only
to harass the in-laws.
_________________________________________
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
_________________________________________
The learned counsel for the complainant contentions: 498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
1.That
it was a fact that the complainant was married to her husband. In fact, the in-laws
No.1 and 2 had come in the way of the said marriage by filing an objection with
the Registrar of Marriages.
2.
That the husband and the complainant were residing happily after their marriage
on 24.09.2015 in the house of the mother of the complainant. It was only at the
instigation of the in-laws that husband/husband has taken way the sound system,
which had been brought by the husband obtaining a loan for the purpose of
business to be conducted by the complainant and the husband.
3.
The demand from time to time by the in-laws calling upon the complainant to
give divorce to husband would amount to cruelty within the meaning and purport
of Section 498(A) of IPC.
4.
After the investigation, a charge sheet has been laid implicating the in-laws and
as such he submits that the matter requires trial and the Court ought not to
exercise powers under Section 482 to quash the proceedings even insofar as the in-laws
were concerned.
_________________________________________
Contact For Free Consultation to discuss Your case For Right Solutions
_________________________________________
The Karnataka High Court Contention: 498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
The
Hon’ble High Court opined that it would not amount to cruelty as contained and
or required to prove the ingredients of Section 498(A) of the IPC. It was a
fact that at no point in time, the complainant ever resided with the in-laws. The
petitioner has always resided separately with her mother and continued to do
so, even as on the date of the complaint and thereafter.
Secondly
the allegations made were only relating to the return of the sound system and
return of the monies lent. This was a personal transaction between the complainant and the husband and she was required to sort out the matter with her husband
either amicably or legally.
Thirdly
the in-laws not being party to any of the transaction between the husband and
the complainant, they cannot be dragged into this proceedings, these
proceedings appear to be filed only to harass the in-laws, The High Court
further opined that this Court can exercise unfettered powers under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., when on a complete meaningful reading of the first information the report, it does not disclose any offense committed by the accused persons under
the penal law for the time being in force.
Thirdly
the allegations did not bear out such an offense in the case, The High Court
opined that, the proceedings insofar as the two brothers-in-law and
mother-in-law was required to be quashed so as to avoid unnecessary harassment
to them.
Therefore
the high court quashed the proceedings pending on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC Court, Badami for the alleged offenses punishable under Section
498(A), 504, and 506 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
_________________________________________
Contact For Free Consultation to discuss Your case For Right Solutions
_________________________________________
Conclusion: 498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
The article on 498a quash judgement 22.09.2020 is based on the decision of the Karnataka High Court on the grounds
that the allegations in the complaint and the FIR as well as in the charge
sheet do not attract the ingredients of Section 498A IPC. There is no
alleged demand of the dowry and the cruelty on the complainant. Even no such
complaint was ever filed to any authority to substantiate the allegations.
It
is better to get the FIR/Charge sheet evaluated from the experts to analyze the
grounds for 498a quash to save from long litigations in the trial courts. If
such grounds persists than the use of section 482 Cr.P.C will help the husbands
and the in-laws family from becoming the victim of false 498A IPC case.
Follow Us On Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Join Facebook Group
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment