498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021 – Bombay High Court – Over-Implicated allegations made against the father-in-law; mother-in-law & married sister-in-law are absurd in nature. FIR Quashed.

498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021 – Bombay High Court – Over-Implicated allegations made against the father-in-law; mother-in-law & married sister-in-law are absurd in nature. FIR Quashed.

498A Quash after chargesheet 09.12.2021 – Bombay High Court – Over-Implicated allegations made against the father-in-law; mother-in-law & married sister-in-law are absurd in nature. FIR Quashed.

498A Quash after chargesheet 09.12.2021


Read More Judgements on 498a Quash


Ganesh Ashok Alat And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9.12.2021

498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021 – In this article, the Bombay High Court has held that the allegations made against the father-in-law, mother-in-law & married sister-in-law are general & absurd in nature as no specific incident is quoted against them in the complaint, further it was held by the High court that no case is made out against the petitioners even if the allegations against them are proved. The reason why Bombay high court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 and 504, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.


Case Brief - 498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021

The marriage of the husband and wife got solemnized according to their rituals. The matrimonial life of the husband & wife was going on smoothly until the time when the family members of the husband demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a plot.

The demand was to ask for Rs. 10,00,000/- from the parents of the wife in consideration of Dowry. The wife was dragged out of the matrimonial home on 24.01.2019 on the account of failure to bring a certain amount from her parents.

On the same day, jewellery was snatched from the wife in person when she was leaving the matrimonial home. The non-fulfilment of the said demand became the cause for the initiation of cruelty against the wife by the petitioners. After that, the wife was residing with her parents at her parents’ home. On 13.12.2019, the wife approached the Women's Grievance Cell to seek redressal.

_______________________________________________________

Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement by Bombay High court- General and over-implicated allegations against the husband and the entire family. FIR Quashed.

BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH

______________________________________________________

Arguments - 498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021

Advocate of the petitioners stated that though the names of the petitioners are mentioned in the FIR, the allegations against them are general and absurd in nature without quoting any specific incident as such.

Further, he submitted that all of the family members have been implicated in the present crime i.e.; the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the married sister-in-law of the wife. He also submitted that the allegations, are general in nature and have been made in the complaint without quoting any specific incident. Hence, it is a clear case of over implication.

He further stated that the allegations have mainly been made against the husband and brother-in-law, whose application, seeking quashing of the proceedings, came to be withdrawn.

The advocate of the wife submits that the names of the petitioners are mentioned in the First Information Report with the specific role attributed to each of them. It is alleged that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home on account of non-fulfilment of the demand for Rs. 10 lakhs for purchasing the plot.

He further stated that on 24.01.2019, the wife was finally driven out of the house after snatching all her jewellery from her in person. And on 13.12.2019, the wife approached the Women's Grievance Cell to seek redressal. Hence, he submits that there is a triable case against the petitioners. There is no substance in the Criminal Application and the application is liable to be dismissed.

_______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Referred Cases - 498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021


1. Gita Mehrotra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. Neelu Chopra & others V. Bharti

3. Taramani Prakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh

4. Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Paddar

_________________________________________________________________________________

Contact For Counseling to discuss Your case For Right Solutions

_________________________________________________________________________________


Court opinion - 498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021

After going through the chargesheet and the contents of the complaint, the court is of the view that the allegations made against the petitioners are general in nature without quoting any specific incident in the complaint.

Though there are allegations made about the unlawful demand and the cruelty caused to the wife on account of non-fulfilment of a certain demand of Rs. 10 Lakh, however, allegations made against the present petitioners are absurd. It is a clear case of over-implication.

Therefore, no case is made out against the petitioners even if the allegations against them are held to be proved. Therefore, criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 and 504, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal application is disposed of.

_____________________________________________________

Buy "Guide to Fight Maintenance Under section 125 Cr.P.C


_________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion - 498A Quash after chargesheet 9.12.2021

In this article, the Bombay High court has held that the allegations made against almost the entire family of the husband are general & absurd in nature. The complaint in the present case is made out just to take revenge. It is clear from the complaint that the allegations are mainly against the husband and the brother-in-law of the wife. Hence, no clear reason to proceed with the case against the petitioners. Therefore, criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323 and 504, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be quashed. Because of the above-stated reasons the Bombay High court quashed the FIR.


Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram

Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights


WhatsApp




    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 comments:

Post a Comment