B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Posted on September 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A reasoned judgment on maintainability of IPC 494 upon the Accused No.2 and the merits of discharge petition filed before Trial Court u/s 227 CrPC. It relies on AP State Amendment of 1992. But unfortunately, this judgment is Partly perverse as it goes against A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011 hence NOT to be relied up on.]

In Page 35,

Earlier the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC is a non-cognizable offence. The Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992, amended the first schedule to Central Act 2 of 1974 i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and made the offence under Section 494 IPC a ‘cognizable’ offence and a ‘non-bailable’ offence. The said Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992 was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the 21.10.1991 for consideration and assent of the President. The Presidential assent was received on 10.02.1992 and the amendment was published on 15.02.1992 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-B (Ext.). Therefore, with effect from 15.02.1992 undoubtedly the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable offences in the State of Andhra Pradesh. So, the police officer can now register the case under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and can investigate the same under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the case under Section 494 IPC is on the Court and not on the police. So, in view of the fact that it is a cognizable offence, police can register the case on a report lodged with them to that effect and also investigate the case and file final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Now, the crucial question that arises for consideration is, whether Court can take cognizance of the case on such police report/ charge-sheet filed by the police or not in view of the express bar engrafted under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. on the Court to take cognizance of the case except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved party before it.

Perverse portion of the judgment, that goes against A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 21 July, 2011

So, only when an allegation relating to the offence under Section 494 IPC is made by the aggrieved person to the Magistrate, then only the Court can take cognizance of the case. Certainly the Court cannot take cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC on a police report/charge-sheet filed by the police. Even though offence under Section 494 IPC is made “cognizable” offence as per amendment Act 3 of 1992, there is no corresponding amendment made to Section 198 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the bar under Section 198 Cr.P.C. still subsists. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and it has been clearly well settled.

B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194056755/

Index to Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.

From Para 7,

7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.

And from Para 9,

9. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39

L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013

Posted on June 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013

Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 608], [2014 JLJR SC 1 75], [2013 AIR SC 6202], [2014 SCC 14 401], [2013 SUPREME 7 765], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 140], [2013 SCALE 13 259], [2013 AIOL 708], [2015 SCC CRI 1 376], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 485], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 957], [2013 AIC 132 33], [2014 CUTLT 117 975], [2013 AIR SC SUPP 423], [2013 ALLCC 83 947], [2014 NCC 1 280], [2014 CCR SC 1 9], [2014 SCJ 3 735], [2014 DMC 1 107], [2013 JT SC 14 543], [2014 OLR 1 323], [2014 CLT 117 975], [2014 UC 1 59], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 535]

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008

Posted on November 9, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The Apex Court had held that,

“15. It is trite that the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible.”

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008

Citations:

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

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful Judgment from our Supreme Court. See Hon’ble Apex Court has in detailed analyzed the contention of to quash or not to quash. This has become a landmark judgment which provides the below guidelines to quash/discharge.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

Read the way in which Justice J.S. Khehar has answered the above steps and finally quashed the High Court order to not discharge the accused.

Definitely a interesting read !!

Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Citations: [2

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court has concluded that the petitioner’s discharge petition deserves allowance as none of the allegations made under various sections in the case does not hold good to continue the proceedings.

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 November, 1978

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court whereby a person is discharged under section 227 Cr.P.C. from the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.

From Para 3

The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of section 227 of the Code, the matter was thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

From Para 5,

Thus, it would appear that the legislature while dispensing with the procedure for commitment enquiry
under the Code of 1898 has conferred a dual responsibility on the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded by the police and the documents filed with a view to find out whether a prima facie case for trial has been made out and then if such a case is made out to proceed to try the same. In our view the legislature has adopted this course in order to avoid frivolous prosecutions and prevent the accused from being tried of an offence on materials which do not furnish
a reasonable probability of conviction.

From Para 7,

At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

Few terms used by Hon’ble Justices of Apex Court in earlier judgments are

… Magistrate … is not to act as a mere Post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution
Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine.

Following principles have emerged

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

Citations: [1979 SCR 2 229], [1979 AIR SC 366], [1979 MLJ CRI 361], [1979 SCC 3 4], [1979 CRILJ 154], [1979 SCC CRI 609]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1360078/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5de

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another SC Judgment discharging the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C, as there is no ground to proceed to Trial under IPC 498A.

But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.

Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the “ground” may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Citations: [1

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)
Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.
Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘. This view is re-affirmed by a 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court in, Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016.
Note4: Read recent landmark decision of a Full bench of the Apex Court on when to/not to Quash a FIR/case in ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors‘ [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315]
Note4: In recent landmark judgment Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025, Supreme Court issued 4-steps test/procedure to be followed by High Courts, in alleged False Rape cases.

Note: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases); Interestingly, no other new/overruling judgment till date.

Vague and General and omnibus Allegations

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 [Package of 5 cases laid on parents of husband]
Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024 [Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024 [Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar, Apex Court trashed the nonsensical decision of AP High Court]
Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024 [DHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [TelHC: Relied on Category 1 of Bhajan lal and Preethi Gupta]
CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024 [KarHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar]
Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 [SC: Counterblast case]
Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law]
Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations against distant relatives is abuse of process of law]
Tushar Sampat Mane and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 8 Aug 2025 [BomHC : holding allegations were vague, exaggerated, and not grave enough to constitute cruelty under IPC.]
Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025 [SC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law, Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case]
Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 [KarHC : Neighbours cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC]
Asish Bera & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr on 30 Jan 2026 [CalHC : Quashed due to lack of material and duplicate complaints.]
Dr.Sushil Kumar Purbey and Anr Vs The State of Bihar and Ors on 9 Mar 2026 [SC :Quashed criminal proceedings against in-laws, held that identical omnibus allegations cannot justify differential treatment]
Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026 [SC : FIR against in-laws quashed due to vague allegations, lack of evidence, and unexplained delay.]
Sivaraman Nair and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 24 Apr 2026 [SC : Quashes criminal proceedings against in-laws, emphasising absence of specific allegations and misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.]

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010 [SC: Family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case]
Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Family members cannot be roped into the case]
Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Bhajan Lal, quashed proceedings; 211 IPC also suggested]
Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 [MPHC:absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation]

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 [APHC: Counterblast case to Husband’s divorce case]
Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 [CalHC: proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge; Category 1 of Bhajan lal]
Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 [SC: FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time]
Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025 [BomHC: Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period]
Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025 [SC: IPC 420 Vs IPC 406]

Material evidence required that supports allegations

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

Approaching Court with unclean hands

All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

498A IPC not maintainable due to null and void marriage/Earlier Divorce

Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002 [SC]
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others on 8 Jan 2004 [SC: Held as per incuriam]
Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 [DelHC]
Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018 [SC: Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021 [TSHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022 [APHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 [SC]
Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 [KarHC]
M.Sreenivasulu and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 May 2024 [APHC]

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 227 – Discharged

B.Parvathi Vs State of AP on 7 May, 2020

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 November, 1978

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)