498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022 – Karnataka High court – Bald allegations made against the Mother-in-law, Brother-in-law & his wife are general in nature. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022 |
Read More Judgements on 498a Quash
Pushpa Devi W/O. Vijaysingh vs The State Of Karnataka on 3.02.2022
498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022 – In this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against the Mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and his wife are general in nature without quoting any specific incident against any of them in the complaint as the petitioners never had a chance to reside with the couple in their matrimonial home. Further, the Karnataka high court has held that by going through the complaint it is clear that majorly the allegations are made against the husband only a few bald statements are made against the mother-in-law of the wife. Since no incident is recorded against the petitioners high court ordered to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Case Brief – 498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022
The marriage of the husband and the wife got solemnized on 15.02.2002 as per the rituals and customs of their religion. After the marriage, the husband and wife appeared to have moved to the United States of America and later shifted to Canada. In the initial years of the marriage, everything was going on smoothly between the couple.
After a few years of the marriage, the relationship between the husband and the wife apparently turned sore, resulting in lodging a complaint by the wife on 09.03.2021.
The allegations in the complaint were majorly made against the husband. Apart from the few statements with regard to allegations that were made against the mother-in-law when the mother-in-law had visited the couple in the United States of America almost about 10 years prior to the registration of the present complaint.
The husband and the wife after marriage resided together for almost 17 years and if problems were to arise between the husband and the wife when they were away from the home country on account of their avocation, these other family members cannot be dragged into such proceedings on this account.
Except, for such bald statements in reference to other family members, there is no such other statement made that would attract the provisions punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC.
Petitioners are the mother-in-law, the brother-in-law, and the wife of the brother-in-law who never had any occasion to stay with the wife or with the couple.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Referred cases – 498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022
1. Geeta Mehrotra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the brother and unmarried sister of the husband approached the High Court for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and on the ground as no case was made out against them under Sections 498A, 323, 504, & 506 IPC including Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It's the legal duty of the High Court to check whether there was any evidence against the petitioners that they should undergo the trial, as there was the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court overlooked all the pleas that were raised against them and rejected the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
But as the contents of the FIR did not disclose any specific allegations against the brother and sister of the wife’s husband except for the casual reference of their names, it would not be fair to make them suffer through the criminal procedure especially when the FIR does not disclose any material evidence against them.
Therefore, the court deems it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
2. Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
A bare reading of the chargesheet discloses the fact that the petitioners are the distant family members of the husband. They are related to the husband as they are the maternal uncles of the husband. Except, for the bald statement that they supported the husband who harassed 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 mentioned crime. Therefore, 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 Judgement 03.02.2022
After reading the complaint and the chargesheet the Karnataka High court is of the view that the allegations are mainly made against the husband and allegations made against the mother-in-law are bald.
Though names of the petitioners i.e.; brother-in-law and his wife have been mentioned in the complaint, however, there are no specific allegations prescribing any specific individual role against any of the petitioners except common general and sweeping allegations against all of them.
Even if the allegations made against all the petitioners are held to be proved, no case is made out against them. In view of the same, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the law. Hence, there is no triable case against the petitioners.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion - 498A Quash Judgement 03.02.2022
In this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and his wife are general and bald as no specific incident is quoted in the FIR against any of the petitioners. It is clear by reading the chargesheet that majorly the allegations are made against the husband who is not a petitioner in front of the High court.
Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances dragging the petitioners into the criminal proceedings would result in a miscarriage of justice and be an abuse of the process of the law.
Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter , Instagram
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment