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
In this judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the accused be given benefit of doubt in the criminal case of 498a IPC, as the depositions of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses is either hearsay or different from what is averred in the original complaint/FIR.
Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012[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 Andhra Pradesh held that,
In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011
Case Details:
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)This judgment should have been a reported one for it covers soo many good points to dustbin the complaint of the knife against the family members. Read the tags for more info.
Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012
no te
Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,
From Para 10,
D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State By on 2 January, 2018Admittedly 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.
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.
The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL
Key points
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January, 2015
- Unexplained delay
- Dowry not proved
- No return of articles given voluntarily
Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons
Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017
This is a popular quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of IPC 498A, IPC 504, IPC 506 and 3 & 4 of DP Act.
The grounds on which quash is done are
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012
