In a rare act, Justice Satyanarayan Murthy has given a Quash order in a false 498A IPC case. He also invoked AP Dowry Prohibition Rule 1998 which are available here.
Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, where appropriate High Courts should exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash baseless proceedings.
The Supreme Court had held that,
MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/
Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749, AIR 1998 SC 128
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Good judgment from Hon’ble Bombay High Court which held that mere demand of money not coupled with cruelty does not attract provisions of 498A IPC.
Kamlesh Ghanshyam Lohia Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2019Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Another braindead knife tried to rope in relatives that live far away from her matrimonial home at Delhi and rightly shown the door by Learned MM as well as the casual revision filed by State is gutted.
State (GNCT) of Delhi) Vs Babita on 10 April, 2013Frivolous litigations which eat into the judicial time have to be curbed and it is necessary for the Courts to impose a heavy costs on the Routine Litigation being filed by the State for wasting public time where other important judicial work can be taken care off. At this stage, the Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that due care would be taken in future by the Department so as to ensure the compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and hence it is on his persuasions that I am not imposing any cost in the present case.
Knife came to court with baseless allegations and Dr Kamini Lau of Delhi District Court sent her packing.
it was revealed that at the time of the alleged incident dated 23.10.1998 as mentioned in Para 14 of the complaint, the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was not in Delhi and was in fact posted at Mumbai being a government servant. This fact is also reflected from his service record certificate issued by the Commandant Director (Personnel) for Director General, Coast Guards, that the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was posted at Mumbai in the Head Quarter, Coast Guard Region (West) as Deputy Regional Law Officer w.e.f. 31.10.1996 to 31.12.1998 and was thereafter posted at Port Blair in the Head Quarter, Coast Guard Region (A&N) as Deputy Law Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1999 to 15.8.2001. Though, at the time of filing of the chargesheet the said certificate showing the period and place of posting of the revisionist Man Mohan Sharma was not verified but now at this stage while hearing the revision petition, this court directed the investigating officer to confirm and verify the same and inform this court his place of posting in October, 1998. The investigating officer has got this aspect verified and has reported that as per the verification conducted from the Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Head Quarter, it stands confirmed that the accused Man Mohan Sharma was residing separately at Mumbai during the period 31.10.1996 to 31.12.1998 and at Port Blair thereafter till the year 2001. This being so, the incident dated 23.10.1998 as narrated by the complainant in her complaint does not stand confirmed.
In simple english, the above BOLD text is called as LIE.
And this is the last nail in the kunning knife’s coffin…
Lastly, I am compelled to observe that Section 498A IPC in the recent years has become consummate embodiment of gross human rights violation, extortion and corruption and even the Apex Court of our country had acknowledged this abuse and termed it as Legal Terrorism. The provisions of Section 498 A IPC are not a law to take revenge, seek recovery of dowry or to force a divorce but a penal provision to punish the wrong doers. The victims are often misguided into exaggerating the facts by adding those persons as accused who are un-connected with the harassment under a mistaken belief that by doing so they are making a strong case. Courts cannot be a party to any kind of exploitative situation and it is necessary for every complainant to remember that it is only an honest complaint which succeeds in law where contents are supported by facts on the ground and persons, who are not connected with the harassment, should never be arrayed as accused. The platform of the courts cannot be permitted to be used to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment and the tendency of the complainants to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations by roping in each and every relation of the husband is required to be deprecated. The obligation of the court is to ensure that innocent persons are not put to harassment and to curtail the frivolous allegations at the earliest stage by looking for due corroboration from the facts.
(Ref.:- Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors., CRL (R) 462/2002 decided on 30.5.2003);
Criminal Appeal No. 339-41/05 dated 2.3.2010, Delhi High Court;
Arjun Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2004 CLJ 2989;
Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 163 and
Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr., 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 86.
One more para,
Man Mohan Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 25 February, 2011I may further add that in any matrimonial dispute, it is the primary duty of every court to ensure that for any fault of the husband, his other relatives including married sisters and brothers who may be living jointly or separately and the aged parents are not involved either out of vengeance or to curl out appropriate settlement.
Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.
As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has quash the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.
Highlights
Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra
Law point from Para 10,
It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
From Para 19,
Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in this Criminal Revision that the parents-in-law of the knife cannot be forced to undergo criminal trial as no specific allegations supported by evidence is available on record.
See the cunning nature of this knife. Got 15 lakhs as settlement amount even then tried to implicate in-laws!!
From Para 9,
The charge sheet which was filed by the police clearly discloses that the husband of the complainant was residing in Nigeria and he could not be traced. The charge sheet also took note of the fact that during the course of investigation, when the petitioners had prayed for bail, the dispute was settled between them and the complainant on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the order of the High Court. The complainant had accepted such amount towards settlement of her matrimonial disputes. Initially an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was deposited with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court but on the request of the complainant, the same was released in her favour. The complainant who is present in person admits of her having received the aforesaid amount.
From Para 28, 29,
Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015The FIR clearly makes out a case of the husband of the complainant not treating her well. The complainant went to Nigeria, only to find that her husband was in the habit of drinking alcohol and watching pornographic films. The house in which the complainant was kept was shared by other relatives of the husband. There is no mention of the petitioners having gone to Nigeria to stay with their son or with the complainant. The averments made in the FIR further disclose that the tall claims of the family of the petitioners was found to be false during the period when the complainant had the opportunity to stay in the matrimonial family. Though it is stated that she was insinuated and taunted for bringing less dowry and was made to do household work as if she was a maid servant of the house, but no specific instance of such acts of cruelty have been listed by the complainant. A vague and general allegation has been raised that she was not treated well in her matrimonial home when she came back from Nigeria. The FIR also refers to the assessment of the complainant that the petitioners did not want her to come back to India.
Apart from this, admittedly, the complainant accepted Rs.15 lakhs towards settlement of her matrimonial dues. The husband of the complainant who is the son of the petitioners is untraceable.A protracted investigation in the matter also did not yield any definitive finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The petitioners were not sent up for trial.
