In this quash judgment under CrPC 482 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main contention of IPC 406 was not even entertained on the distant relative of husband.
Tag: CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed
D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State of Tamilnadu on 2 January, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,
From Para 10,
Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners. In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.
Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
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.
Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
This is a Quash judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Patna, based on no jurisdiction to the concerned court to make enquiry and trial in the present matter.
Having gone through the rival contentions of both sides and on perusal of record especially the complaint petition, the Court finds that the place of occurrence is not mentioned in any of the pragraphs of the complaint rather one paragraph discloses that on 04.09.2010, she was assaulted by all accused persons at Vadodra but wrongly spelt as Barauda. Even the addresses of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint is of Gujarat and there is no allegation that any demand or torture was committed at the parental home of the complainant situated at Nawada. Ordinarily place of enquiry and trial is held by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Sections 177, 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts relating to enquiries and trials.
Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
This is a quash judgment from Shri Dr.Arijit Pasayat J delivered based on the 7th category of cases, from Bhajan Lal case, that may be quashed is
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Sushma Pattanshetti Vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2017
As there are no specific allegations on family members other than husband, the proceedings under 489A are quashed in this Karnataka High Court judgment.
