498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022 - Telangana High Court – No specific allegations alleged against the husband’s relatives. FIR Quashed.

498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022 - Telangana High Court – No specific allegations alleged against the husband’s relatives. FIR Quashed.

498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022 - Telangana High Court – No specific allegations alleged against the husband’s relatives. FIR Quashed.
498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

Read More Judgements on 498a Quash

Gopu Rajender Reddy And 9 Others vs Gopu Krishnaveni And Another on 25.02.2022

498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022 – In this article, the Telangana High court has held that the allegations made against the relatives of the husband don’t specify any overt act against any of the petitioners. Further, the Telangana High court has held that as far as allegations against the husband is concerned, the husband and wife had parted their ways by having a divorce decree by mutual consent before this complaint was filed. Therefore, the Telangana High court quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights

Case Brief – 498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

The marriage of the wife and the husband got solemnized on 10.12.2010 as per the rites and customs of their religion. The family of the husband was known to them and her mother refused the said alliance. 

But, due to the acquaintance and the promise made by the husband, the wife trusted him, went along with him, and later the couple married in Saibaba temple at Mancherial in the presence of the family members and other relatives of the husband.

Immediately after the marriage, the wife went to the husband’s home at Kagaznagar. Since the day of the marriage, the wife was leading an unhappy married life. 

The husband and his parents and other relatives of the husband told her that they agreed to the marriage just to take revenge, as her mother refused the alliance and demanded Rs.40 lakhs as dowry and unless she’ll fulfil the said dowry demand, they would not allow her to live separately.

The wife further alleged that the family of the husband threatened to kill her if she revealed the same to her mother, brother, or any other person, and the husband’s family confined her in the matrimonial home. The wife further stated that on 13.12.2010 her mother became ill and was admitted to Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar.

On receiving the information about her mother, she requested her husband and in-laws to allow her to go see her mother at Apollo hospital, but they refused. On her continuous consistent requests, the husband along with his 5 relatives took her to the Apollo Hospital. 

There the wife found her mother in miserable condition. The wife informed the entire incident her mother and brother and from there, her mother took her to their house at Kagaznagar.

The wife stated that even at that time the husband and his relatives tried to stop her and her family, but they escaped from there and came to Kagaznagar. And hence the wife filed a complaint against the petitioners before Kagaznagar police on 16.12.2010.

On the basis of the said report, the police registered the complaint about the offenses under Section 498A  IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the petitioners for the above offenses.



Arguments – 498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

The advocate appearing for the petitioners argued and submitted that after the police registered the complaint about the above-mentioned crime, the petitioners filed an application before the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but due to lack of communication between the petitioners and their counsel, the said petition was dismissed and withdrawn via order dated 04.08.2014.

The petitioners didn’t have the knowledge of the withdrawal of the said criminal petition. As such, they had filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Kagaznagar Police Station and an interim stay was granted by this Court in the said petition directing the police not to arrest the petitioners until further orders. 

While the matter was pending, police at Kagaznagar proceeded with the investigation and filed chargesheet, as such, became infructuous and the petitioners undertook to withdraw the same. 

As the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur was proceeding with the previous trial, and the petitioners filed the present petition.

The advocate for the petitioners further submitted that after registration of the above crime, the husband and the wife entered into a divorce deed by mutual consent engrossed on an Rs.50/- non-judicial stamp paper in which both the parties have agreed that they would not have any claim of whatsoever against each other. 

Subsequently, the wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and an ex-parte decree of divorce was granted vide order dated 21.12.2011.

He further submitted that the petitioners were not guilty of any offense as alleged by the wife. Moreover, the wife wrongly using the provisions of law, dragged all the family members of the husband including the sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who were married long back and were residing separately different from the place of residence of the couple, and the other petitioners who were living at different places.

Hence, it was clearly an abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the divorce was already granted long back in the year 2011. As such, the continuation of proceedings under Section 498A IPC was not maintainable and no purpose would be served and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as it was an abuse of the process of law.

On the other hand, the advocate of the wife argued and submitted in her counter that there were prima facie allegations against the petitioners in the complaint as well as in the chargesheet filed by the police.

He further contended that the truth of the said allegations could be decided only during the trial but they could not be decided by the court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and asked to dismiss the petition.


Referred cases – 498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

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

2.  G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.

3.  B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.



Court Opinion - 498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

In light of the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that in the present matter, when the wife and her husband are divorced as the wife has secured an ex-parte decree of divorce, the same could have weighed with the High Court to consider whether the proceedings initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be continued in spite of the absence of any specific allegations at least against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the wife and whether continuing with the criminal proceedings could have amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

It seems that High Court has not examined these aspects carefully and has side-tracked all these considerations only on the ground that territorial jurisdiction could only be raised before the magistrate conducting the trial.

Hence, considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as the chargesheet would not disclose any prima facie allegations of offenses alleged against the petitioners under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, all the relatives of the petitioners who were residing in different places were also roped in by the wife de-facto complainant and their marriage which was very short survived also ended in a divorce and it was reported that both the parties were again married and settled in their lives, it is considered a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, as the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.



Conclusion - 498A quash Judgement 25.02.2022

In this article, the Telangana High Court has held that the allegations made against the husbands’ relatives don’t specify any particular allegation alleged as no overt act is mentioned in the complaint or in the chargesheet. It is clear that the relatives were residing at a separate place other than the matrimonial home of the wife. And as far as the allegations against the husband are concerned, they have parted ways by requesting a divorce decree on mutual consent before this complaint.

The allegations are made against the other family members of the husband just to rope them in the criminal proceedings with the intention of defaming the family. Therefore, FIR against the petitioners is quashed.

Follow us On Facebook, Youtube, Twitter , Instagram


    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment


Post a Comment