498a quash judgement 1.09.2021- Father & Mother-in-law living separately from the couple and no specific allegations against them leads to the quashing of the case. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498a quash judgment 1.09.2021 |
498a quash judgement 1.09.2021- This article is based on the recent decision. The High Court is of the firm opinion that it is a clear case of over implication of charges upon the in-laws by the complainant. The long-distance relationships explained by the list of dates and events, referred to hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, cannot culminate into the allegations as leveled in the impugned FIR, as far as the petitioners (in-laws of the complainant) are concerned.FIR Quashed
Case Brief 498a quash judgement 1.09.2021
The husband and the wife got married, as per the Hindu rituals, on 13.12.2015 at Hanumangarh. The couple thereafter moved to Bangkok and stayed there together for some time. However, thereafter, matrimonial conflict arose between them, which led to lodging of the present FIR at Police Station for the offenses under Sections 406, 498A, 313 & 377 IPC, quashing whereof has been sought in the husband.
The advocate of the in-laws has made submissions pertaining to both the present petitions filed on behalf of the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, of the complainant. He submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR itself, the offense against the husband is not made out.
He further submitted that the offense is also not made out against the old-aged and ill parents of the complainant's husband, and the impugned FIR was lodged only with a view to harass them.
He also submitted that the role of the in-laws of the complainant cannot be said to be such, which can suggest that they were the perpetrators of the allegations concerned, as they were residing at Hanumangarh, whereas the complete matrimony in question was admittedly spent at Bangkok, except for certain intermittent visits of the complainant to her matrimonial home.
He submitted that on a bare reading of the chats and the conversation between the husband and the wife, it is clear that until there was matrimonial harmony, there were no allegations; however, as soon as the color of such harmony changed, the allegations in question erupted retrospectively.
Arguments 498a quash judgement 1.09.2021
A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at face value and accepted properly, do not prima facie constitute any offense or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined fully but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
An FIR may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
The whole complaint has simply alleged that all the in-laws have demanded the dowry from her and her father on the telephone, however, no specific role of any of the in-laws has been mentioned. As such, from the bare reading of the FIR, no offense punishable under sections 498A and 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners.
However, from the bare reading of the complaint, it is clear that specific allegations of cruelty and harassment are leveled against the husband and for that complainant had to approach a local court seeking protection from her husband regarding her ill-treatment. This fact itself shows that a prima facie case may be made out against the accused No.1, however, this Court is of the opinion that other in-laws have been implicated by the complainant only for the reason that they are immediate relatives of the husband.
Husband and her in-laws are subjecting her to cruelty, Whoever, being the husband or his relatives, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Referred Cases 498a quash judgement 1.09.2021
1. GV Rao Vs. LHV Prasad & Ors.
2. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
3. Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
4. Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
5. Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Court Opinion 498a quash judgement 1.09.2021
We should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is pure abuse of the process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold.
This Court is convinced that in the case in hand, there is an over the implication of the in-laws in the complaint. The in-laws cannot be said to be involved in the commission of any crime as per the contents of the FIR. Hence, it is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise inherent powers to quash the impugned FIR qua them.
On the other hand, the advocate of the complainant including the complainant while vehemently opposing the complaint, submitted that since the nature of allegations leveled in the present FIR is very serious, therefore, at this stage, no interference of this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted.
Conclusion 498a quash judgement 1.09.2021
The advocate of the complainant, however, reiterated the story, as narrated in the impugned FIR, and the documents, pertaining to the investigation made into the present FIR, were also shown in the court.
The Court is of the firm opinion that it is a clear case of over implication of charges upon the in-laws by the complainant. The long-distance relationships explained by the list of dates and events, referred to hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, cannot culminate into the allegations as leveled in the impugned FIR. Hence FIR Quashed.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment