One good judgment from High Court of Andhra Pradesh which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
Month: September 2018
Tammineedi Bhaskara Rao & Others Vs State of A.P. rep., by Public Prosecutor & Others on 18 November, 2006
In this quash judgment, hon’ble High Court of AP has held that
Learned Counsel would submit that the specific allegations made in the complaint, against the petitioners herein, relate to the demand of dowry attracting the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel would refer to Rule 10, of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, to contend that since the allegation of demand of dowry against respondents 2 to 4 are at the time of the marriage which, even according to the complaint, took place in December 1996 and as the complaint was filed eight years thereafter in December 2004, it was barred by limitation.
And the Shri Ramesh Ranganathan J (as his Lorship was called then) held that,
There is considerable force in the submission of Sri K. Jagdishchandra Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner that, since Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules prescribes a limitation of one year, the complaint filed eight years after the marriage is barred by limitation. Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1998 provides that any offence under Section 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year.
Shri Ramesh Rangarajan is the ‘Longest serving Acting CHief Justice of AP High Court. Read article here.
Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018
This is a case of malicious litigation per High Court of Madras in a complaint for offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as DP Act), Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as TNPHW Act) and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as IT Act).
Hon’ble Court has mercilessly quashed the petition and threw it out the window, for good.
Jaggavarapu Satishkumar Reddy and 3 Otrs Vs The State Of AP On 20 February, 2018
A quash judgment here from High Court of A.P. wherein the request was to quash a false 498A IPC case with a argument that, “the allegations do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 and that respondent No.2-defacto complainant deserted her husband (petitioner-A.1) long back and that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 is nothing but abuse of process of Court.”
Instead of quashing the case, the judge ordered to go for Discharge at lower court itself.
And the judge gave this order in Para 7 and 8,
As far as allegations against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4, the court below has to decide truth or otherwise of the allegations. The petitioners-A.1 to A.4 are at liberty to file an application for discharge in accordance with law, and on filing of such application, the Court below has to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 that petitioner-A.4 is aged 88 years and is suffering from health problems and not in a position to move. Taking into consideration of age and health condition of the petitioner-A.4, her presence is dispensed with in the proceedings before the Court below subject to her complying with Section 205 Cr.P.C.. As and when her presence is specifically required, the Court below may order her presence. As far as other petitioners-A.1 to A.3 are concerned, in case of any difficulty in attending the Court, they are at liberty to invoke the relevant provisions of law.
Dolat Ram & Ors Vs The State Of Haryana on 11 November, 1994
Another good judgment from hon’ble Apex Court, setting aside a HC order which cancelled Anticipatory bail on improper ground.
High Court at Gauhati Notification-06-02-2015
In this notification, Gauhati High Court notified that going forward A4 size white papers to be used in all judicial as well as official works in the High Court and Subordinate Courts under its jurisdiction from 1-March-2015 onwards.
Few guidelines are also issue:
- Maximum 26/27 lines be typed out in each sheet in 1.5 space in between the lines,
- Words in size 11 of Tahoma font,
- Margins 4 cm at top, 1cm below, 5 cm left and 2 cm right.
Biman Chatterjee Vs Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr on 10 February, 2004
Cunning knife got the bail granted earlier to husband, cancelled by the local magistrate for alleged reason that the appellant is not cooperating in the compromise talk.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has rightly set aside the order of High Court at Ranchi.
Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015
The District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cancelled the bail earlier granted to the Accused, on the baseless and unproven allegations that “some unknown persons on their behalf started threatening the defacto complainant with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise in the case“.
Hon’ble AP High Court has rightly held that the above is not a ground that can be relied upon for Bail cancellation under CrPC 439, as the said allegations are at that point in time are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.
…and…
By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.
Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs Union of India on 14 September, 2018
Correcting few directions given in Rajesh Sharma judgment here, a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued this judgment.
Shutter Down of Family Welfare Committees
From Para 18,
18. It was submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that the decision in Rajesh Sharma (supra) requires reconsideration, for the said judgment confers powers on the Family Welfare Committee to be constituted by the District Legal Services Authority which is an extra-judicial committee of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens to look into the criminal complaints under Sections 498-A IPC in the first instance and further, there has been a direction that till such time a report of the committee is received, no arrest should be made. It is urged that the constitution of FWC to look into the criminal complaints under Section 498-A IPC is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From Para 33,
33. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, we find that the Court has taken recourse to fair procedure and workability of a provision so Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India : (2012) 10 SCC 603, Para 52; SCBA v. Union of India : (1998) 4 SCC 409, Para 47; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (d) by Lrs. : (1989) 2 SCC 754, Para 7; Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham : (2012) 1 SCC 333 State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh : (2012) 3 SCC 346, Paras 46, 52 & 85 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303, Para 61 that there will be no unfairness and unreasonableness in implementation and for the said purpose, it has taken recourse to the path of interpretation. The core issue is whether the Court in Rajesh Sharma (supra) could, by the method of interpretation, have issued such directions. On a perusal of the directions, we find that the Court has directed constitution of the Family Welfare Committees by the District Legal Services Authorities and prescribed the duties of the Committees. The prescription of duties of the Committees and further action therefor, as we find, are beyond the Code and the same does not really flow from any provision of the Code. There can be no denial that there has to be just, fair and reasonable working of a provision. The legislature in its wisdom has made the offence under Section 498-A IPC cognizable and non-bailable. The fault lies with the investigating agency which sometimes jumps into action without application of mind. The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar (supra) are in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 41 CrPC and Section 41-A CrPC. Similarly, the guidelines stated in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) are within the framework of the Code and the power of superintendence of the authorities in the hierarchical system of the investigating agency. The purpose has been to see that the investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy.
From Para 35,
However, the directions pertaining to Red Corner Notice, clubbing of cases and postulating that recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail would stand on a different footing. They are protective in nature and do not sound a discordant note with the Code. When an application for bail is entertained, proper conditions have to be imposed but recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground while rejecting an application for grant of bail under Section 498-A IPC. That cannot be considered at that stage. Therefore, we do not find anything erroneous in direction Nos. 19(iv) and (v). So far as direction No. 19(vi) and 19(vii) are concerned, an application has to be filed either under Section 205 CrPC or Section 317 CrPC depending upon the stage at which the exemption is sought.
From Para 38,
38. In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family Welfare Committee and its constitution by the District Legal Services Authority and the power conferred on the Committee is impermissible. Therefore, we think it appropriate to direct that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra). It will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest.
39. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove.
40. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same.
41. As far as direction Nos. 19(iv), 19(v) and 19(vi) and 19(vii) are concerned, they shall be governed by what we have stated in paragraph 35.
So, in summary, the following are the currently active guidelines from SC modified from Rajesh Sharma, apart from Arnesh Kumar.
From Para 19 of Rajesh Sharma Judgment:
iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/ complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;
v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;
vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and
vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. (On filing an application u/s 205 CrPC or 317 CrPC;Judgments here)
Citations : [2018 SCC 10 443], [2019 SCC CRI 1 276], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1501], [2018 AIR SC 4273], [2018 DLT 252 175], [2018 CRIMES 3 503], [2018 GUJ LH 3 140]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81618143/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b9d5e5d9eff431109ed3e71
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/social-action-forum-for-manav-adhikar-and-another-versus-union-of-india-ministry-of-law-and
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/sec-498a-ipc-only-hc-can-quash-cases-on-settlement-a-third-agency-created-by-courts-cant-exercise-statutory-functionssc/
In Shivangi Bansal Vs Sahib Bansal on 22 Jul 2025, Division Bench of Apex Court restored the Family Welfare Committees.
