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 2016Peculiar 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
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 455 access attempts in the last 7 days.
