498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022 – District Court – General and vague allegations against the husband, parents-in-law, and brothers-in-law. Charge Framing order set aside.
 |
| 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022 |
Read More Judgements on 498a Quash
498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022 – In this article, the District Court has held that the allegations made against the revisionists were general and vague in nature. As it is clear from reading the chargesheet that majorly the disputes were because of the marital issues between the wife and the revisionist. It was further held by the district court that the allegations which were raised against the revisionist were made without quoting any specific incident as to when the incident actually happened which would attract the provisions of section 498A IPC. Therefore, the District Court has quashed the petition against all the petitioners.
Case Brief – 498A
quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
A complaint was filed by the
complainant against all the revisionists i.e.; her husband, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, and brothers-in-law alleging that the wife was subjected to
domestic violence for dowry demand by revisionists.
It was alleged that at the
time of marriage, all the revisionists raised a demand for a sum of Rs.8 lacs
as dowry for various household articles viz. sofa, fridge, washing machine, air
conditioner, and four-wheeler.
It was further alleged by the
wife that the vehicle is still in possession of her brother-in-law and the
cupboard containing her jewelry, clothes, and cash is in custody of her parents-in-law.
It was alleged that on asking, lame excuses have been made by her mother-in-law
averring that the key of the cupboard is missing or the same is lying in the
bank locker.
It was further alleged that on the pressurization of other family members, the husband threatened the wife that he will shift to abroad without her. On these allegations, the present FIR under Section 498A, 406, 506, & 34 IPC was registered against all the revisionists and the matter was investigated.
_________________________________________________________________________
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement 11.04.2022 - District court - General allegations against the in-laws. Charge framing order set aside.
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement by Bombay High court- General and over-implicated allegations against the husband and the entire family. FIR Quashed.
Read Latest Article- 498A quash judgement 28.03.2022 - Karnataka High court - General and Omnibus allegations made against the relatives of the husband. FIR Quashed.
BUY "498A QUASH" - EBOOK - A GUIDE TO 498A QUASH
Arguments – 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
Advocate for revisionists argued on the grounds as taken in this present revision petitions. Advocate argued that the trial court erred in law in passing the impugned order against the revisionists.
It was further argued that the wife
hasn’t come with clean hands and has concealed material facts. It was argued
that the wife was intentionally harassing the revisionists with the sole purpose
of vengeance.
It was further argued that
the alleged offences under Section 498A, & 406 IPC are not made out against
the revisionists in the absence of specific material on record. On such
powerful strength of these arguments, revisionists are here in front of the
court seeking to set aside of the impugned order.
Per contra, the advocate for the wife counter-argued on the facts of stated by the advocate that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the same has been passed keeping in mind the facts available on record in chargesheet and therefore the present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Referred cases – 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
1. Shahkon Belthissor v. State of Kerala
2. Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi
4. Raj Kumar Khanna v. State
5. Anu Gill v. State
6. Sukhbir Jain v. State
7. Gaurav Thapar v. State NCT of Delhi
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________Court Opinion - 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
If the allegations made by the wife are tested upon the touchstone of aforesaid statutory principles, the court is of the considered view that no charge under section 498A IPC could have been framed in the instant case.
In my opinion, even if all the allegations of the wife are taken at its face value, then also the case of the wife at best is that a sum of Rs.8 lacs were taken by the revisionists from the wife’s father at the time of marriage.
Therefore, admittedly the dowry demand, if any was made prior to the solemnization of marriage meaning thereby the status of the husband and the wife was not that of husband and wife at the relevant time.
However, the statutory provisions of section 498A IPC are very much clear as the same are attracted only in case the cruelty (as defined under said provision) is committed by the husband or by any of his family members.
All the other allegations as made by the wife in the complaint do not come within the ambit of cruelty as defined under section 498A IPC and therefore, the court is of the considered view that Trial Court fell into a grave error while framing charges against the revisionists for said offence and the order of Trial Court on that count is liable to be set aside reason being suffering from jurisdictional error.
Further, even if it is assumed that there was an entrustment, then also, the court is of the view that only general and vague allegations have been made without elaborating on the incident when the stridhan was handed over.
_____________________________________________________
Court Opinion - 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
If the allegations made by the wife are tested upon the touchstone of aforesaid statutory principles, the court is of the considered view that no charge under section 498A IPC could have been framed in the instant case.
In my opinion, even if all the allegations of the wife are taken at its face value, then also the case of the wife at best is that a sum of Rs.8 lacs were taken by the revisionists from the wife’s father at the time of marriage.
Therefore, admittedly the dowry demand, if any was made prior to the solemnization of marriage meaning thereby the status of the husband and the wife was not that of husband and wife at the relevant time.
However, the statutory provisions of section 498A IPC are very much clear as the same are attracted only in case the cruelty (as defined under said provision) is committed by the husband or by any of his family members.
All the other allegations as made by the wife in the complaint do not come within the ambit of cruelty as defined under section 498A IPC and therefore, the court is of the considered view that Trial Court fell into a grave error while framing charges against the revisionists for said offence and the order of Trial Court on that count is liable to be set aside reason being suffering from jurisdictional error.
Further, even if it is assumed that there was an entrustment, then also, the court is of the view that only general and vague allegations have been made without elaborating on the incident when the stridhan was handed over.
_____________________________________________________
Buy "Guide to Fight Maintenance Under section 125 Cr.P.C
_________________________________________________________________________________Conclusion - 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
In this article, the District Court has held that the allegations made
against the revisionist i.e.; almost all the in-laws are general and
vague in nature, without quoting any specific allegations against any
of them. The allegations made against the revisionist were made just
to make them suffer through the criminal proceedings.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in the
absence of any specific allegations made against the revisionist, the
District court quashed the petition against the revisionist.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Right
Conclusion - 498A quash after chargesheet 07.05.2022
In this article, the District Court has held that the allegations made
against the revisionist i.e.; almost all the in-laws are general and
vague in nature, without quoting any specific allegations against any
of them. The allegations made against the revisionist were made just
to make them suffer through the criminal proceedings.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, in the
absence of any specific allegations made against the revisionist, the
District court quashed the petition against the revisionist.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment