498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021 – Bombay High Court - Allegations against the Maternal Uncle, sister-in-law, Brother-in-law are general. FIR Quashed.
 |
498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021 |
Vishwanath Madhavrao Sabne And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 24.11.2021
498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021 – In this article, the Bombay High court has held that the allegations made against the maternal uncle of the husband, the married sister-in-law of the husband & the husband of the married sister-in-law are general & absurd in nature, further it was held that by the Bombay High court that the allegations are mainly against the husband, the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the wife, who all are not the petitioners before the Court. Hence, the FIR was quashed by the High court.
Case Brief - 498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021
The marriage of husband and wife was solemnized way back in the
year 2015 and after the marriage, the wife & the husband started to
co-habit in her matrimonial home. Husband is an Engineer by profession & is
working in a private Multi-National Company in Delhi.
The married sister-in-law who is a Lecturer by profession got married way
back in 1999 and resides in Aurangabad along with her husband who is an Executive
Engineer in Irrigation Department.
The wife stated that she was treated well for the very first month after the marriage, thereafter she accompanied her husband & shifted to Delhi. In Delhi, the wife gave birth to a baby girl in 2017. It is alleged that the petitioners have threatened the wife to bring an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from her father in order to purchase a house.
_______________________________________________________
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
Arguments - 498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021
Advocate of Petitioners submits that the maternal uncle of the husband,
the married sister-in-law of the wife, and the husband of the married sister-in-law
are the petitioners in the present case.
Further,
he stated that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not specifically
quote any date or year, it has been simply alleged that all the petitioners and
the husband have threatened the wife to bring an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from her
parents for purchasing a house otherwise she will be killed.
He
further contended that the wife stated she was scolded for giving birth to a
female girl child but no particular name has been referred to. It has been
stated in the complaint in 2019, that when the complaint was lodged, the
parties were called by the women's grievance redressal committee, a
compromise had taken place and the wife was taken back to her matrimonial home
for further cohabitation.
In
addition to the above-stated points, he alleged that during the course of an investigation,
statements of the wife’s parents were recorded, however, they had no first-hand
knowledge of the alleged ill-treatment and on the basis of the disclosure made
to them by the wife, they stated about the ill-treatment caused to the wife in
Delhi. He further stated that the allegations made against the petitioners
are general & are absurd in nature without narrating any specific incident.
The advocate of the wife submits that wife was subjected to ill-treatment after the birth of
the female child for two reasons. The petitioners and the co-accused demanded
Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the house and scolded her for the reason that she
gave birth to a female child. However, the matter was compromised and, the wife
started cohabiting with her husband in her matrimonial home.
On 03-11-2021, when her husband left for Delhi, the petitioners and the co-accused again demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing the house and further gave threats to kill her, if the demand is not fulfilled. The wife was subjected to ill-treatment on the count that she gave birth to a female child. Hence, he submits that there is a triable case against the applicants, there is no substance in the Criminal Application and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Referred cases - 498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021
1. Geeta Mehrotra and others v. State of U.P.
2.
Neelu Chopra and others vs. Bharti
3. Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Contact For Counseling to discuss Your case For Right Solutions
______________________________________________________________
Court Opinion - 498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021
In this case, the allegations made against the maternal uncle
of the husband, the married sister-in-law of the husband & the husband of the married sister-in-law are general in nature without quoting any specific
incident.
The
allegations have mainly been made against the husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law and they are not the applicants before the court. It is clearly a
case of over-implication. The wife has implicated almost the entire family
members, including married sisters-in-law and even the husband of the married
sister-in-law
The
complaint in the present case is vague. It does not show clearly as to who has
committed what offense and what is the exact role played by these petitioners
in the commission of the said offense.
It is well settled that the allegations are absurd in nature and do not make out any case, the proceedings can be quashed.
_______________________________________________________
Buy "Guide to Fight Maintenance Under section 125 Cr.P.C
Conclusion - 498A Quash after Chargesheet 24.11.2021
In this article the Bombay High court held that the allegations made against the maternal uncle of the husband, the married sister-in-law of the husband & the husband of the married sister-in-law are vague and absurd in nature. Hence, the FIR was quashed by the High Court.
Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter , Instagram
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment