498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021 – Karnataka High Court held that allegations made against mother-in-law & sister-in-law are general & sweeping. FIR Quashed

498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021 – Karnataka High Court held that allegations made against mother-in-law & sister-in-law are general & sweeping. FIR Quashed.

498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021 – Allegations made against mother-in-law & sister-in-law are general & sweeping. FIR Quashed
498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

Read More Judgements on 498a Quash

Mrs. Prabhavati Gujar vs State Of Karnataka on 10.11.2021

498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021 – In this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against the mother-in-law & unmarried sister-in-law who have been residing separately are boundless & general in nature, further it was held by the Karnataka High court that it is only as a passing reference as there is no mention of any act that has alleged to have been committed by the petitioners both in the complaint & the FIR. Hence, the Karnataka High court held that it would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR.


Case Brief - 498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

On 24-12-2004 the marriage of the husband & wife was solemnized 24.12.2004 and thereafter they shifted to Texas, USA. The wife and her husband lived in the USA between 2004-2011. In November 2011, the wife and her husband decided to move back to India. After their return, the husband of the mother-in-law died on 5-09-2014. In November 2014 both the wife and her husband shifted to Bangalore and began to reside there.

It is further contended that in April 2018, the husband came back to Mumbai from Bangalore to take care of his mother who wasn’t well & requested the wife to shift back to Mumbai as well where they all will live together. This led to the filing of a domestic violence petition by the wife which is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic court, Bangalore seeking maintenance against the husband.

After filing the petition for maintenance, the wife lodged a complaint against the petitioners and her husband, and it was registered by the police as a Non-Cognizable Report. After this complaint was turned down by the police, the wife then registered another complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and her husband.

The first complaint was registered on 21.09.2018 and in this complaint a NCR was issued by the police. After a month on 24.10.2018, a second complaint was filed by the wife alleging certain other facts that were not mentioned in the first complaint which led to the registration of FIR against the petitioners and the husband of the wife as the offence stated in the second FIR was one punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

_______________________________________________________

Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement by supreme court- The bald allegations against married sister-in-law do not attract section 498A. FIR Quashed

Buy E-Books on 498A and Section 125 Cr.P.C

______________________________________________________


Arguments – 498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

Advocate of petitioners submitted that the wife and the husband have never resided with the petitioners. For 7 years of their matrimonial life, they were living in the USA and in the month of November 2011, when the husband along with his wife came back to India they resided with the family for a certain period of time & later moved back to Bangalore. There was no occasion for the petitioners who are mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law to have engaged in any act which would attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.

The petitioners have in fact taken care of the wife whenever she has stayed with them for whatever period and only because there were problems between the husband and the wife, the petitioners are also dragged into the frame.

Advocate also submitted that the first complaint lodged resulted in an NCR and only the second complaint is lodged for further offences. He submits that it is a clear case in which Court has to interfere and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

On the other side, the Advocate of the wife submitted that the petitioners have indulged in various acts of harassment against the wife as could be noticed from the complaint itself, as the wife was for a short period had stayed with the petitioners and it is at that point of time, the petitioners have caused mental harassment to the wife.

He further contends that there is a bag of disputed questions of fact as to how the wife has been treated by the petitioners pushing her to the wall and the mental harassment caused by the petitioners. This would come under the provisions of Section498A IPC. 

This Court at this stage should not quash the proceeding as it is a matter of trial and the Court would not interfere under Section 482A of the Cr.P.C. of investigation as it is the emphatic submission of the learned Senior Counsel.


Referred Cases - 498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

1. GeetaMehrotra V. State of Uttar Pradesh

2. PreetiGupta And Anr. V. State of Jharkhand

3. Rashmi Chopra And Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh

4. T.S.K Ashwin Kumar V. State of Telangana

5. State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal

6. Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan V. Ram Gopal Poddar

_________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________


Court Opinion - 498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

In this case, the allegations made against the mother-in-law & unmarried sister-in-law is only a passing reference as the FIR only brings out the names of the petitioners & that they have indicated that the wife has to live separately with the husband. Except for this, no other act of cruelty is stated to have been committed by the petitioners.

It is not disputable that both the petitioners are not staying with the wife and the husband. And it is a well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court is of the point in quashing the proceedings & preventing the abuse of the process of law.

It seems that the High Court has overlooked all the pleas that were questioned and dismissed the petition on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court.

_______________________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion - 498A Quash Judgement 10.11.2021

In this article the Karnataka High court held that the allegations made against the mother-in-law & unmarried sister-in-law are boundless & general in nature. Even if taken at par they wouldn’t attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC. Hence, the FIR was quashed by the High court.

Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter , Instagram

Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights

WhatsApp




    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment

0 comments:

Post a Comment