498a quash judgement by supreme court- No allegations of harassment & cruelty against the husband. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498a quash judgement by supreme court |
498a quash judgement by supreme court- This article is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Shakson Belthissor vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July 2009, In this decision, the Apex court explained the definition of cruelty in the explanations of Section 498A IPC and quash the FIR and chargesheet against the husband on the grounds that no allegations are involved their for any kind of harassment and the allegation doesn’t attract section 498A IPC as per explanation given in subsection (a) and (b) of the section 498A IPC.
Case Brief 498a quash judgement by the supreme court
The complainant got married on 23.10.1997. Even if they are related to each other, the complainant is in the relation of the daughter of her husband’s maternal uncle and paternal aunt. Incidentally, the aforesaid marriage was the second marriage of the complainant as she was earlier married to another person, who died in the year 1995.
Through the said marriage the complainant has two sons. However, it was the first marriage of the husband. Out of the wedlock between her second husband and the complainant, there is no issue.
The husband was working at the relevant time in Saudi Arabia. He got married to the complainant when he came on leave for four months. However, after the marriage, there are some disputes between the parties. The complainant filed a complaint in the Police Station of Kerela alleging that her husband married her when he came on a vacation of four months and that after the marriage he stayed in the house of the complainant and that after the expiry of the period of leave, her husband returned to the Gulf.
Arguments 498a quash judgement by the supreme court
It was also stated by the complainant in the said FIR that thereafter, for 2-3 months, her husband used to send money for the expenses in the house, talked to her on the telephone, and also sent letters from Saudi Arabia, and always behaved with the very affectionately towards the complaint. It was also alleged that the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage had given Rs. 5 lakhs and that the said money was utilized by the family of her husband for purchasing a house and also a property where they were residing.
It was stated that thereafter they started spreading wrong information regarding the conduct of the complainant in the locality and also misled her husband about her. On believing his family members, the husband also stopped sending money from Saudi Arabia for her expenses and also stopped sending letters to her.
She stated in the said FIR that when she called him on the telephone, her husband behaved without affection towards her and disconnected the phone due to which she became mentally weak.
It was also alleged that subsequently whenever the husband came on leave, he never used to come to the house of the complainant and stayed in the house of his younger brother and when the complainant herself went to that house, she was turned out from that house. Further added that due to such treatment meted out to her, she has been suffering both mentally and physically.
The advocate of the husband stated that the marriage between the husband and wife was performed on 23.10.1997 when it is alleged that Rs. 5 lakhs was given by the parents of the complainant to the family of the husband as dowry.
There is no allegation that subsequent thereto any harassment was made by her husband with a view to coercing her or any person related to the complainant to meet any unlawful demand as in property or cash.
Referred Case 498a quash judgement by the supreme court
1. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi,
2. Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishna
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi
4. Smt Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi,
5. Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
6. Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar
7. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
8. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
9. Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd
10. R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others.
Court Opinion 498a quash judgement by the supreme court
Where the averments made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted properly do not have any prima facie constitute offense or make out a case against the husband.
Where the allegations made in the FIR are vague and totally inappropriate on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the husband.
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and where there is a specific provision in the IPC, providing efficacious redress for the grievance to the husband.
Where a proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the husband and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
CONTACT FOR COUNSELING - BOOK APPOINTMENT NOW
Conclusion 498a quash judgement by the supreme court
The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding and, in particular, an FIR unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offense.To constitute cruelty under the said provision, there has to be torture on the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any valuable property or security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
The allegation made in the FIR and chargesheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find no prima facie case even under the relevant provisions is made out to attract a case of cruelty.
It is crystal clear that neither in the complaint nor in the chargesheet there is any ingredient of Section 498A IPC, which could prima facie constitute a case of cruelty as defined in that Section.
It is thus established that on a reading of the FIR as also the chargesheet filed against the husband no case under Section 498A is made out on the face of the record therefore FIR and chargesheet both are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Clearly, the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record. Therefore, allow this complaint and quash the proceedings initiated against the husband under Section 498A of the IPC.
Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter , Instagram
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment