Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that there is no material against the petitioner to prosecute under 498A/34, 379/34, 494 IPC and 3 of the D.P.Act, hence all proceedings are quashed.
Month: July 2018
S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
This is a border-case judgment, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held so,
In the above facts and circumstances and with reference to the law as laid down by the apex court, for purposes of Section 498A of the IPC, though it may not be essential that a legally valid marriage is established, it was necessary to establish that the petitioner and the complainant had lived together as husband and wife. In this regard, there is sadly no evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, even the wider definition applied to the expressions ‘husband’ and ‘marriage’ with reference to the decisions of the apex court referred to hereinabove would not come to the aid of the prosecution.
Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that IPC 498A is applicable to only relatives of husband who are blood relatives or by marriage. And thereby quashed the IPC 498A allegation from FIR. It let the proceeding to continue with IPC 406, in regards to the jewelry.
Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the proceedings under IPC 498A, just because husband didn’t respond while he was on his personal tour, the knife alleged illicit relationship to her husband. And the Court rightly dust-binned the case as illicit relationship does not attract IPC 498A provisions, even if taken to be true.
Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, has quashed the order of taking cognizance in 498A case and also the FIR. Very good and reasoned judgment.
Both husband and knife file separate divorce petitions one after another and then filed MCD too, which got allowed.
Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017
Based on U.Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that when there is no marriage, IPC 498A can not be made applicable. Hence it was removed from case and asked the lower court to complete the trial in 3 months.
Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in this wonderful judgment, held that
it could not be said that the petitioner who is alleged to have been having an extramarital affair with the husband of the first informant since 2011, would fall within the ambit of “Relative”. Let me assume for the moment that the husband of the first informant has got married with the petitioner in February, 2014. Primafacie, the marriage is invalid. The first marriage is still in subsistence. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 498A could not be said to have been committed.
And, also IPC 494 not applicable on woman,
Section 494 cannot be made applicable against the petitioner because Section 494 is an offence committed by the husband. If a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The husband is sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The same cannot be made applicable so far as the petitioner before me is concerned.
U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, a concubine is not a relative to the husband of the knife, with regards to IPC 498A.
The word ‘cruelty” having been defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Meaning or definition of “relative”:
In the absence of any statutory definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word ‘relative’ would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or
adoption.The word ‘relative’ has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar Advanced Law Lexicon – Volume 4, 3rd Edition as under :-
“Relative, “RELATIVE” includes any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. [Lunacy Act ].
The expression “RELATIVE” means a husband wife, ancestor, lineal descendant, brother or sister. [Estate Duty Act].“RELATIVE” means in relation to the deceased,
a) the wife or husband of the deceased;
b) the father, mother, children, uncles and aunts of the deceased, and
c) any issue of any person falling, within either of the preceding sub-clauses and the other party to a marriage with any such person or issue [Estate Duty Act].
A person shall be deemed to be a relative of another if, and only if, –
a) they are the members of a Hindu undivided family, or
b) they are husband and wife; or
c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in Schedule I-A [Companies Act, 1956].“RELATIVE” in relation to an individual means –
a) The mother, father, husband or wife of the individual, or
b) a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the individual, or
c) a grandson or grand-daughter of the individual, or
d) the spouse of any person referred to in subclause (b) [Income tax Act].“RELATIVE” means –
1) spouse of the person ;
2) brother or sister of the person ;
3) brother or sister of the spouse of the person;
4) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the person;
5) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the person; [Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act].”
From Para 18,
By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a ‘relative’. The word ‘relative’ brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.
Citations: [2009 ACC 67 903], [2009 SCC 6 787], [2009 SCC CRI 3 36], [2009 AIR SC 0 3491], [2009 SUPREME 3 797], [2009 RCR CRI 2 923], [2009 SCC 6 757], [2009 KERLT 2 686], [2009 MLJ CRI 2 1079], [2009 DMC 1 887], [2009 SLT 4 462], [2009 CUTLT SUPPL 1126], [2009 AIOL 675], [2009 AIR SC 1451], [2009 ANJ SC 2 16], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 3 845], [2009 CRIMES SC 2 357], [2009 JT 7 222], [2009 SCALE 7 149], [2009 SCR 7 902], [2009 AIR SCW 3491], [2009 CRLJ SC 2974]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/953117/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c47
Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that
Therefore, it is absolutely essential for the Trial Court to summarily state the “basis” on which it forms an opinion justifying the framing of charges against an accused. This can be done without giving“Reasons”, elaborate or otherwise and it would suffice if the Trial Court refers to the evidence on record without any elaboration of its contents. Statements of witnesses can be referred to by the name of the witness without discussing the contents of the statements or how the same prima facie implicates the accused.
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that, “It is settled law that right to travel is a facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1836).”
13. This Court is also of the opinion that if the impugned condition imposed by the
Additional Sessions Judge is not immediately set aside, the petitioner in the near future
could lose her job.
14. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner who is having no criminal
antecedents and good academic qualifications is unlikely to abscond.
15. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the impugned
order dated 06th October, 2012 restraining the petitioner from leaving the boundary of
the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the country without the prior permission of the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside.
16. The SHO/Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner’s passport forthwith.
