498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020 – Allegations does not disclose any offense under 498A IPC, F.I.R. Quashed.

 

498A Quash Judgement 22.09.2020
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.

_______________________________________________________


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

WhatsApp




    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 comments:

Post a Comment