498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022- Bombay High Court - No Specific and Precise allegations against the two In-laws. F.I.R Quashed.
498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022- In this article, the Bombay High Court held that the supplementary statements of the wife and also the statements of her relatives were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. is vague and there are no specific and precise allegations exclusively attributing to the role of the two In-laws. Even if the two In-laws of the wife were instigating the rest of the In-laws in subjecting the wife to cruelty, no further details can be found, and it is clearly an instance where inference can certainly be determined that an attempt has been made to rope in them with some ulterior motive. Therefore, Criminal Proceedings against the In-laws are hereby quashed.
Case Brief- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
According to the facts mentioned in the F.I.R filed by the wife, the marriage of her wife and her husband was solemnized about 11 years prior to the filing of the F.I.R, and the wife and her husband had begotten a couple of children.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife started to cohabit with her husband and In-laws at her matrimonial home.
It is also stated that the wife was ill-treated and was subjected to cruelty by her husband and In-laws after her marriage.
Upon this, the wife filed the F.I.R at the police station, Dhule district for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against her In-laws. After Investigation, a chargesheet was filed and submitted by the police against the In-laws.
_________________________________________________
Arguments- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
The advocate appearing on the behalf of the two In-laws submitted that the allegations in the F.I.R filed by the wife are as Vague as they could be.
It is also submitted that the wife had cohabited with her husband for 11 years and the couple had begotten a couple of children, there were no previous allegations and for the first time, a grievance was put up in the form of the FIR regarding the alleged ill-treatment.
It is further submitted that no specific and precise role is attributed to the two In-laws except the husband, and it would be hazardous to make them face the trial with such vague and omnibus allegations.
Arguments- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
Therefore, he prayed for quashing the F.I.R and chargesheet filed by the wife against her two In-laws.
On the other hand, the APP appearing on behalf of the State and the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife would take the court through the FIR, supplementary statement of the wife, and also the statements of the witnesses who are her relatives which according to the wife prima facie corroborate the allegations. And an opportunity needs to be extended to the petitioner to lead independent and convincing evidence.
Therefore, it was prayed that there is no sufficient reason to quash the proceedings at the threshold against the two In-laws of the wife.
_________________________________________________
__________________________________________
Referred Judgements- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
The Supreme Court has decided the above-mentioned case which had similar facts to the matter in hand and stated that upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, the allegations in the F.I.R lodged in the matter by the wife were general, vague, and Omnibus and, collectively, by referring to all the accused, allegations were leveled regarding the alleged ill-treatment.
It is stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offense, then the allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.
It is also stated by the supreme court that as far as the accused are concerned when the allegations made against them are general and omnibus, then it does not warrant prosecution.
Court’s Opinion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
In the present case, the court stated that this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down in the above-mentioned case and also stated that even if the two In-laws of the wife were instigating the rest of the In-laws in subjecting the wife to cruelty, no further details can be found.
It is further stated that the supplementary statements of the wife and also the statements of her relatives are recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. is vague and there are no specific and precise allegations exclusively attributing to the role of the two In-laws.
In view of the above discussion, the court held that the matter deserves to be considered favorably to the extent of the two In-laws, and it is clearly an instance where inference can certainly be determined that an attempt has been made to rope in them with some ulterior motive.
Therefore, the criminal application to the extent of two In-laws is allowed and the Chargesheet and the F.I.R filed by the wife at the police station, Dhule district for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against her two In-laws are hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 10.11.2022
In this article, the Bombay High Court held that even if the two In-laws of the wife were instigating the rest of the In-laws in subjecting the wife to cruelty, then also no further details can be found. The matter deserves to be considered favorably to the extent of the two In-laws, and it is clearly an instance where an inference can certainly be discerned that an attempt has been made to rope in them with some ulterior motive.
It was also held that the supplementary statements of the wife and also the statements of her relatives are recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. is equally vague and there are no specific and precise allegations exclusively attributing to the role of the two In-laws.
Therefore, the F.I.R against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment