All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.
Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!
CIC_SS_A_2011_002037_M_77848This is a 498A/304B IPC Case. Parents of husband were discharged on application. Husband was denied suspension of Sentence while the Appeal at High Court was pending disposal. Supreme Court granted Bail to Husband.
M. Radha Hari Seshu Vs State of Telangana on 14 Aug 2020The impugned judgment from Telangana High Court is below
M.Radha Hari Seshu Vs State of Telangana on 20 Mar 2019Here is the Sessions Court Judgment
State of Telangana Vs M. Radha Hari Seshu on 14 Dec 2016State of AP Vs Pinninti Appalareddi on 27 February 2020
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Peculiar case of magistrate rejecting Discharge under 239 CrPC even after the parties have settled the dispute, just because 498A IPC is Non-Compoundable !!! This is in Calcutta. Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta stepped in and discharged the accused under 239 CrPC.
Soukalin Ghosh & Ors Vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 28 June, 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”]
In this revision filed by knife against the discharge of husband’s relatives, District Court of Delhi, held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.
From Para 5,
Perusal of the file reveals that case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police. In this complaint it is no where mentioned that any of the respondents no. 2 to 6 had made any specific demand and the allegations are against her husband.
….
Perusal of the file further reveals that supplementary statements of petitioner were recorded on 29.03.2006 & 02.05.2004. In the complaint given to the Joint Commissioner of Police, there are no allegation of harassment and dowry demand against any of the respondents no. 2 to 6. There are allegation against respondent nos. 5 & 6 that they had thrown the gifts and they refused to accept them as the same were not as per their choice. There are allegation against the respondents no. 3 & 4 that they started fighting with the petitioner. They also stated to the petitioner that they are foreign returns and taunted the petitioner and further they demanded for change of gifts. I am of the view that these allegations cannot be construed as demand in view of Section 498A IPC. The Ld. MM has rightly came to conclusion that all the allegations are general in nature. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out any allegation of harassment or dowry demand against the respondents no. 2 to 6.
Para 6 further destroys the prosecution case,
It is admitted fact that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2002 and complaint was filed on 11.11.2003. It is also admitted fact that the marriage between respondents no. 3 & 4 was solemnized in the year 1999 and marriage between respondents no. 5 & 6 were solemnized in the year 2000. It isalso admitted fact that respondents no. 3 to 6 are not residing in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and they are residing separately after the marriage of thepetitioner. It is true that no date, time and place has been given by the complainant when any demand was raised by the respondents no. 2 to 6.
From Para 8,
Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.
Another judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that no case is made out against any of the appellants and the pendency of the proceedings against them before the Magistrate is an abuse of process of court. And thereby quashed the High Court order and the appellants are discharged in terms of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
K.Ramakrishna & Ors Vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 22 September, 2000
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
Hi Folks, Sharing with you all, how I dealt with the false 498A IPC case put on me and my innocent parents, along with timelines. I have also shared my petitions (obviously, totally redacted) along with below timelines, in PDF format.
Take little pains to have them drafted for your cases.
Do NOT ask me word versions. Even if you ask, I will NOT give 😉
All credit goes to one organization named and styled as MyNation Foundation. Hundreds of exceptionally knowledgeable members have spend thousands of hours selflessly just to guide, motivate, support another of their brother from another mother (that is myself) who has been facing a false matrimonial case in India.
Thank you Rudy, for giving us MyNation.net.
NOTE: My DV case is available here. India is here.
On 07-April-2017,
Compliant filed with Women Police Station, Ongole;
Same day FIR is also registered under IPC 498A and u/s 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
On 08-April-2017,
FIR sent to 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole
On 01-May-2017,
Regular Bail granted by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole to Parents
On 01-June-2017,
Application filed for Anticipatory Bail with High Court of AP u/s 438 of Cr.P.C
On 18-July-2017,
High Court of AP granted Anticipatory Bail
On 31-October-2017,
Charge sheet filed with 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole
On 20-September-2018,
First appearance in the Court along with parents. Collected accused copies of all prosecution documents, 1 set per accused person. We were three, we got 3 copies of below documents.
- Complaint
- FIR
- Printed Charge sheet
- 161 CrPC statements of all witnesses
- Rough sketch of scene of offence
- and few more documents/evidences
On 02-April-2019,
Filed Party-in-person petition in 498A IPC case. All three accused (myself, my daddy and my maa) are PIP !!!
Sample Petition below
Sample Affidavit below
Affidavit - Petition to go PIP in IPC 498A Case (Without Auth)Sample Docket below
Docket Sheet for 498A Case PIP PetitionOn 02-April-2019,
Parents filed 205 CrPC petition praying for exemption from personal appearance during this false case proceedings.
Sample Petition below
Sample Affidavit below
Affidavit - Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 in IPC 498A CaseSample Docket below
Docket Sheet for 205 CrPC Petition in 498A Case
Authorization under Rule 37 filed in the case proceedings.
Sample Authorization below
No sample form or format is available anywhere on the Internet or High Court of AP website. Hence prepared the template myself. You may copy it. 😉
IMPORTANT ASPECT: If you and your parents wanna go PIP, file separate PIP petitions for each accused and separate Rule 37 authorization. Do NOT file 205 CrPC in such case. During the proceedings, one accused can file absent petition or any other petition for other accused. So PIP+Rule 37 is the combination to utilize. Not 205 CrPC, as 205 CrPC mandates, in the absense of accused, their advocate should represent them. In PIP, there is no advocate at all.
Obviously, I filed another memo, seeking permission to withdraw my 205 CrPC petition filed on behalf of my parents. Now, I am free to file any number of absent petitions for them in Court. I also attach any medical certificate or prescriptions in support of the absent petitions. Magistrate cannot deny them.
On 02-April-2019,
Filed Discharge petition in 498A IPC case for all three accused myself, my daddy and my maa
Sample Petition below
Sample Affidavit below
Affidavit - Discharge Petition under Sec 239 CrPC in Sec 498A caseSample Docket below
Docket Sheet for 239 CrPC Petition in 498A CaseOn 22-April-2019, 25-April-2019 and 09-May-2019,
APP sought more time to file Counter to the Discharge petition
On 30-May-2019,
zCounter of APP against Discharge PetitionAPP finally filed a 1-pager Counter to the Discharge petition
Take time to laugh at it. Contact me to know why APP has filed such worthless Counter and the back story.
On 14-June-2019,
Court allows the absent petitions sent via Registered Post with Acknowledgement due. Interesting !!!
Sample covering letter to be sent to the Superintendent of the Filing Section of the Court where the Case is pending, along with duly filled and stamped absent petitions.
Covering Letter - SAMPLEAbsent Petition for absence from a Court hearing date is filed under section 317 Cr.P.C. Sample available here.
From July 2019 to December 2019, Magistrate goes on training!!! 6 Months of training…
On 12-February-2020,
Hearing in the Discharge Petition
Hearing in the Discharge Petition happened. This is otherwise called as Hearing Before Charge framing (HBC)
I introduced the genesis of the case and then the discharge petition and swiftly moved onto the 8 grounds, one by one. Magistrate kept interrupting me by way of clarifications. Took around 15 mins to finish. APP was asked if she got anything to say to the 8 grounds (Note: Magistrate noted down 4 grounds only in her notes). As expected, APP denied the grounds as invalid and not applicable at this stage of case. APP amused me with 1-page Counter earlier (scroll up and read above) and now said very funny and weird reasonings to invalidate my grounds.
After this ruckus, Magistrate asked me for Judgments that I cited in the Discharge Petition. I said, all the judgments are reported judgments and are picked from Law reporters. Still Magistrate and APP also insisted that I produce judgments. I said, I will bring them in the next date. Finally, Magistrate said, she is moving the proceeding, For Orders.
I am glad, at last, I will have a Judicial order soon, that I can go against for Revision in Sessions Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C read with 399 Cr.P.C. with an additional prayer to stay the Trail Court proceedings and for this I have 90 Days of time.
On 24-February-2020,
Order in the Discharge Petition was not passed.
On 02-March-2020,
Order in the Discharge Petition was passed. I was absent.
On 12-March-2020,
Dismissal Order in Discharge petitionI got a CA filed via a advocate friend (yes, i made friends with advocates)
Now working on Criminal Revision Petition to file against above dismissal order at Sessions Court, at the earliest, along with PIP petitions at Sessions Court.
On 08-October-2020,
Revision petition against Discharge Dismissal in IPC 498A Case (SAMPLE)I got the Criminal Revision filed via the advocate friend; Awaiting numbering and subsequent initial hearing
On 10-February-2021,
The Criminal Revision is numbered and notices sent to Respondent. Call on 12 March 2021
On 12-March-2021,
Nothing actually happen on the Bluejeans session. Since Notice to R2 had returned as party not available’, Court allowed serving of Notice to correct/alternative address. If this too fails, next step is to go for Newspaper publication.
On 12-April-2021,
Awaiting hearing…
On 07-August-2022,
Just updating developments…
On xx-August-2022,
Have to follow up with SO, AP HC and ask why he lied that Requisition Note was sent to TS HC.
Mention it before God-Knows-Which-Court, due to addition of new judges triggering roster changes.
LEGAL PROCEDURE TO FILE PETITIONS IN TRIAL COURTS and COMMON PITFALLS TO AVOID:
The strategy to win in this case is as mentioned here.
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 Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.
Note3: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.
No Jurisdiction Judgments
Vague and General Allegations
Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR
Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases
Material evidence required that supports allegations
Approaching Court with unclean hands
Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.
Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 343 access attempts in the last 7 days.
