498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022 – Karnataka High Court – Allegations made against husband, parents-in-law, brothers & sisters-in-law and distant relatives are vague. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022 |
Read More Judgements on 498a Quash
Shri. Farooque S/O. Mohmd Yusuf vs The State Of Karnataka on 28.01.2022
498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022 – In this article, it was held by the Karnataka High court that the allegations made against the husband and the entire family of the husband including the distant relatives are vague in nature. It is clear that the allegations in the complaint made against the husband and the entire family members are made to drag them into the criminal proceedings just to make them suffer and take revenge moreover the dispute between the couple is settled for divorce. Therefore, in light of the law, the court decided to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
Case Brief - 498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022
The marriage of the husband and wife got solemnized on 17.04.2014
in accordance with the customs & rituals in their religion. Initially, the
relationship between the husband and wife was quite understanding.
Soon
it was discovered that the relationship between the husband and the wife was turning
sore, and soon after that a complaint was registered by the wife on 25.4.2020 dragging
the entire family members and distant relatives of the husband.
After
reading the complaint it was discovered that majorly the allegations in the
complaint are against the husband and very few vague sentences about the
mother-in-law and the father-in-law.
The
other family members are unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings without
there being any specific allegations of any plainly apparent act against them. The
investigation was transferred to Sindhanur due to the want of jurisdiction. Later,
the IO (Investigating Officer), has filed the charge sheet without there being order to that effect from the competent Court.
498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022\
It is stated that during the pendency of the present proceeding the husband and the wife settled the dispute between themselves by mutually accepting separation i.e.; divorce. While dealing up with the mutual divorce, the allegations with regard to the present complaint are not addressed.
Even, if the matter is settled between the husband and the wife, by mutually accepting divorce, there are no allegations in the complaint that attract the provision of Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC or Section 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all other family members i.e.; brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and distant relatives who admittedly do not stay with the complainant.
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
Referred Cases - 498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022
1.
The
FIR does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioners but more
so against the husband, especially in the matter arising out of matrimonial disputes.
It would be a clyster clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to intentionally
send the named petitioners in the FIR to go through the trial unless, of course,
the FIR discloses any specific allegations which would convince the court to
take cognizance of the offense alleged against the relatives of the husband who
were on the face of it not found to have involved in the physical and mental
torture of the wife.
The
court, therefore, deems it legally appropriate to quash the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners as the FIR does not disclose any material
which could be held to be constituting any offense against the two petitioners.
498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022
2.
Rashmi Chopra V. State of Uttar Pradesh
The
bare reading of the chargesheet discloses the fact that the petitioners are not
the husband’s immediate family members. They are distant relatives and are
related to the husband as they are the maternal uncles of the husband. Except
for the bold statement that they supported the husband who was harassing the wife
for dowry and that they conspired with the husband for taking away his child to
the U.S.A., nothing else indicates their involvement in the crime that was mentioned.
The petitioners approached the High Court when the investigation was pending.
The chargesheet was filed after the disposal of the case by the High Court.
3.
K. Subba Rao and Others V. State of Telangana
4. State of
Haryana V. Bhajan Lal
5. Kans Raj V.
State of Punjab
6. Kailash
Chandra Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
__________________________________________________________________________________
Contact For Counseling to discuss Your case For Right Solutions
__________________________________________________________________________________
Court opinion - 498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022
After reading the complaint Karnataka High Court was of the
view that the allegations made against the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
brothers-in-law, & sisters-in-law including distant relatives are vague in
nature.
After reading the complaint it is clear that the allegations against all the family members. Therefore, It would be a crystal clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to intentionally send the named petitioners in the FIR to go through the trial.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion - 498A Quash after settlement 27.01.2022
In this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against the husband and the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers-in-law, & sisters-in-law including distant relatives are vague. Therefore, in the light of the facts narrated in the case at hand, more particularly when the dispute between the husband and the wife is settled by divorce and the complaint does not make out any case against other family members including the father-in-law and the mother-in-law, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the present case.
Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment