498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022 - District Court – General allegations against husband and the mother-in-law. FIR Dismissed.
 |
| 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022 |
498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022 – In this article, the district court has held that the allegations made against the husband and the mother-in-law are general and absurd in nature. It is clear from reading the complaint that the allegations made against the husband and the mother-in-law are made without quoting any specific avert act which would attract the provisions of section 498A IPC. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and both the husband and the mother-in-law were discharged with an order to furnish a bail bond of a certain sum each with one surety bond of the same amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Revision is allowed accordingly.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Case Brief – 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022
The present criminal revision has been preferred by the husband and the Mother-in-law
of the complainant respectively against the order dated 24.2.2020 passed by the
Trial Court in a case in which the revisionists were charged for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 498A, 406, & 34 IPC.
Brief facts for the disposal of the present petition as stated in the complaint
dated 21.08.2014 lodged by the wife before the CAW Cell, are that the marriage
between the wife and the husband was solemnized on 26.05.2013 as per Hindu rites,
customs, and Ceremonies.
The Father of the wife had given a huge dowry along with gold ornaments, jewelry,
furniture, home appliances, etc. After a few days of her marriage, the mother-in-law
took all her gold jewelry from her, whereafter, the husband and the
mother-in-law started demanding money from the wife for the construction of the
home.
At the time of marriage, the wife was physically, emotionally, mentally,
and verbally abused by the husband and mother-in-law. The wife was even sexually
abused by her husband and was frequently beaten by him. She was forced to discontinue her studies.
Eventually, on 2.3.2014 wife was forced to leave her matrimonial home. The wife’s father expired on 30.03.2014 because of the mental and emotional trauma caused
by the husband and the mother-in-law.
Pursuant to the wife’s complaint in CAW Cell, an FIR was registered under Section 498A, 406, & 34 IPC against the husband and the mother-in-law. After the
investigation was complete, a chargesheet was filed under Section 498A, 406, &
34 IPC against the husband and the mother-in-law.
Thereafter, an impugned order dated 24.02.2020, was passed against the husband
and the mother-in-law, and were charged for prima facie commission of an offense
punishable under Section 498A, 406, & 34 IPC was framed against both of them.
_________________________________________________________________________
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement 02.03.2022 - Bombay High court - Over-Implicated allegations made against the entire family of husband are absurd. FIR Quashed.
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
Arguments – 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022
Advocate for the revisionist contended that the impugned order dated 24.2.2020 lacked any merits as on the very face of the allegations made in the complaint, no case for the commission of an offense punishable under section 498A, 406, & 34 IPC was made out.
In support of his contentions, Advocate of revisionists has relied upon the landmark judgment titled as Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v State of Bihar and Others, Wherein Supreme Court has held that: -
“That it wouldn’t be reasonable to forcibly pull in the members of husband’s family into the criminal matrimonial litigation to the rigors of a court trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations can’t be put in a situation where the husband’s relatives are forced to go through difficulties of the trial.”
_________________________________________________________________________
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement 25.02.2022 - Telangana High court - No specific allegation alleged against the husbands' relatives. FIR Quashed.
________________________________________________________________________
Referred cases – 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022
1. Jaishree and Ors. v. State
2. M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of
Investigation Bengaluru
3. Sunil Kumar v. State
4. Richa Bharti v. State NCT of Delhi
5. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India
(UOI)
6. Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam
7. S.P. Chengalyvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs v.
Jagannath (dead)
________________________________________________________________________
Court Opinion - 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022
In the court’s opinion, the bare reading of the complaint which culminated in the FIR reflects that the wife alleged generic allegations of dowry demand and cruelty against the revisionists. The wife has neither mentioned any specific date or time of the instances of cruelty.
Although the wife mentioned that at the time of marriage, a huge amount of money was spent by her father, no details of the same were given. Similarly, though she stated that her father had gifted her gold ornaments, jewelry, furniture, home appliances, etc., however, no bills were provided by her to prove the same.
Further, the complaint stated that it was alleged by the wife that during her brief stay at her matrimonial home, she was continuously tortured and beaten up by her husband frequently. Strangely, she didn’t lodge any complaint or called at 100 police helpline number, or place on record any medical documentation to prove that she was physically abused by her husband.
So, as far as allegations of criminal breach of trust are concerned, it was alleged by the wife that after a few days of her marriage, her mother-in-law took all the gold jewelry in presence of her husband.
It is settled law that to bring an offense under Section 406 IPC, not only entrustment but also conversion of the property to his own use or its dishonest use must be established. Needless to say, there is no allegation of the gold jewelry of the wife being converted to any dishonest use by the mother-in-law.
Therefore, considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, charges framed against the husband and the mother-in-law would in the courts’ opinion, be a travesty of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.2.2020 is set aside and both the husband and the mother-in-law were discharged with a direction to furnish a bail bond of sum of Rs.25,000/ each with one surety bond of the same amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Revision is allowed accordingly.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion - 498A quash after chargesheet 02.03.2022
In this article, the District Court has held that the allegations made against the husband and the mother-in-law are general and are raised without any specific allegations quoted against any of them. The wife doesn’t specify any particular allegation alleged as no avert act is mentioned in the complaint or in the chargesheet.
Therefore, considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, charges framed against the husband and the mother-in-law would be a travesty of justice. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and both the husband and the mother-in-law were discharged with a direction to furnish a bail bond of sum of Rs.25,000/ each with one surety bond of the same amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. Revision is allowed accordingly.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment