498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022 – Karnataka High court – General allegations made against father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law are sweeping. FIR Quashed.
 |
| 498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022 |
Read More Judgements on 498a Quash
Shri. Farooque S/O. Mohmd Yusuf vs The State Of Karnataka on 28.01.2022
498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022 – In this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against the family members of the husband are general and sweeping in nature. As by going through the complaint it is clear that majorly the allegations are made against the husband who is not here before the court. It was further held that the allegations are made against the family members just to drag them in the criminal proceedings and to defame them as no specific allegations are made against them in the FIR. Therefore, High court considered it unjust to continue the trial and hence quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Case Brief – 498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022
The husband and the wife got married on 03.07.2019 as per the rituals and customs of their religion. After the marriage, it was noticed that the relationship between the husband and the wife did not go well.
It is alleged that the husband always used to ill-treat the wife by using filthy language and by causing harassment to the wife. After the marriage, the husband appeared to have travelled solo to the United States of America for vacation and after his return back to India he again started to harass his wife on the account that he has no work to do and for that reason demanded a certain amount of money as dowry.
The wife also alleged that the husband has beaten up her and has repeatedly caused physical and mental harassment. By looking at the complaint as it is it does not indicate any offence committed by the petitioners who are the brother-in-law, wife of the brother-in-law, the sisters-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law, and the father-in-law of the complainant.
The entire allegations in the complaint are against the husband and no particular cruelty is alleged against the other family members. It is an admitted fact that some members of the family are residing in different places though in the same city and not under the same roof, under the matrimonial home of the couple are staying.
_______________________________________________________
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement by Karnataka High court- General allegations made against the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, & sister-in-law. FIR Quashed.
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
Referred cases – 498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022
1. Geeta Mehrotra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the brother and unmarried sister of the husband has come before the High Court for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction & also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498A,323,504,506 IPC including Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It
was the legal duty of the High Court to cross-check whether there was any
evidence against the petitioners so that they should undergo the trial, besides
the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court overlooked all the
pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court.
But
as the contents of the FIR does not disclose any specific allegation against
the petitioners except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to
direct them to go through the criminal procedure especially when the FIR does
not disclose any material evidence against them.
We,
therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners.
2.
Rashmi Chopra v. State of Uttar Pradesh
By
reading the chargesheet it is clear 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, 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 crime 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 Judgement 28.01.2022
After
reading the complaint the Karnataka High court is of the view that there are
no specific allegations made against any one of the petitioners except common
general and sweeping allegations against everyone. And the fact that all
relatives of the husband, namely, father, brother, brother's wife, sisters’ and
sister’s husband have been clearly roped in. All this indicates that the
complaint was filed with a view to harassing the petitioners.
In
both the above-quoted cases the Apex Curt has delineated the issue where
proceedings are bought up against all other members of the family, its impact
and effect without there being any allegations against them.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion - 498A Quash Judgement 28.01.2022
In
this article, the Karnataka High court has held that the allegations made against
the entire family of the husband are general and sweeping. 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, it would be highly unjust to permit the trial to be continued against the petitioners in the face of the allegations being only made against the husband, who is not before this Court.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment