Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3-6,

3. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent herself filed a petition vide FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 12.04.2018 and the said order and decree attained finality. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not permissible. In support of his contentions he has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein, who are the aged parents of A-1.

4. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that she has filed FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and the same was decreed and she has received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as per the settlement taken place between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. She has also filed a petition vide M.C.No.39 of 2020 and also O.P.No.831 of 2018 on behalf of her son K.Naga Satya Sai towards maintenance and the said OP was closed on receipt of said amount of Rs.2 lakhs.

5. With the said submissions, the 2nd respondent specifically contended that she has no interest in continuing the present proceedings in Cr.No.800 of 2019 against the petitioners herein.

6. Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent was dissolved vide decree and order dt.12.04.2018 in FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan’s case (supra) and also considering the contents of the counter affidavit, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 2019(1) ALT (Crl.)276 (SC) in Cr.No.800 of 2019, pending on the file of WPS, DD, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein are quashed.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81574210/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court, relying on this case here, held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contents that the marriage between A1 and defacto complainant took place in the year 2016. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed FCOP.No.1087 of 2019. By an order dated 06.02.2020 in FCOP.No.1087 of 2019, the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Court Judge, Vijayawada passed an ex parte decree in favour of the defacto complainant. It is his submission that after obtaining the divorce, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint as against the petitioners on 19.03.2020, when the relation between A1 and defacto complainant as husband and wife is not subsisting.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. In respect of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to a conclusion that since there is no relation between defacto-complainant and A1 as wife and husband, the proceedings in the above case has been quashed for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
10. In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law for the reason that A1 and defacto-complainant married separately and are living separately.

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167169919/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

Mr. R. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused, submits that the prosecution under section 498A of IPC was clearly not tenable in view of the case of the complainant herself that there had been a divorce almost four years before filing of the FIR.
We find much substance in the submission made by Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused. Even in the FIR dated 18.8.2015, the complainant-wife has stated that her divorce had taken place about four years back. It is not possible to accept the contention made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-wife that she made the statement in ignorance of Sharia law. She is a Headmistress and must be credited with due knowledge of her meritorious status.
In view of her own averment that she was divorced four years ago, we are of the view that the prosecution is not sustainable under section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 498A of the IPC opens with the words “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman….” Therefore, where the complainant approaches with a case that there has been a divorce long back i.e. four years ago before filing of the FIR, section 498A of IPC in terms would not be attracted. We accordingly consider it appropriate to quash the prosecution against all the accused persons under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Mohammad Miyan Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150839791/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – IPC 498A case Quashed Due To Earlier Divorce

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018