Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has gladly set aside the Rejection of Discharge petition under 239 CrPC and discharged accused other than husband.
Sukhamay Mondal Vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2018[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”]
Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.
Ashish Dixit & Ors Vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 7 January, 2013Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc
The index page is here.
One good judgment from High Court of Gujarat 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
Twinkleben Umeshbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2018
A precedent is available here.
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
Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006
In this case, the knife alleged illicit relationship between the 1st accused and the petitioner herein.
Update: Since there is personal information displayed in the judgment, with due respect to and on request of the parties involved, the address particulars are removed in the below PDF.
Further Update as on 22-08-2020:
Upon further request received on Whatsapp and on call, I decided to oblige the caller and her husband, to remove the name of the petitioner also from the title, tag and pdf judgment.
Petitioner Vs State of Kerala on 19 January 2015 - further redactedCitations: [2015 SCC ONLINE KER 2315]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29927975/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e3c04a93261a672b6712
Again this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a woman living with a married man, can not be called his relative, for the purpose of IPC 498Aa and hence charge of harassment can not be laid on her by knife.
Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
Curious point in this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is that
Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016It is true by virtue of marriage between A1 and complainant, the relatives of one side became relatives of both sides in a general sense. However, for the strict construction of penal provision under Section 498A, A6 who was the relative of the complainant, cannot be said to be the relative of the husband of the complainant i.e.A1. For this reason and also for the reason that no allegations of cruelty falling within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and the allegations touching other offences are made against A6, she deserves quashment of the proceedings.
Based on U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009, Hon’ble High Court of Ranchi has held that
since the status of the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘relative’ as envisaged u/s 498A I.P.C., she cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed under the said section.
Moreover,
So far as the Section 323/ 406 I.P.C. is concerned, allegations have been specifically levelled against other accused persons and in that context also the complaint petition does not reveal any offence so as to prosecute the petitioner in this present criminal case.
Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
Hon’ble Apex Court held that a person who is not a relative of husband, like in this case, Gurmit is the brother of his aunt (chachi), may not be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304B IPC.
State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
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.
Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
Bad Behavior has blocked 893 access attempts in the last 7 days.
