Good judgment from Hon’ble Bombay High Court which held that mere demand of money not coupled with cruelty/harassment, does not attract provisions of 498A IPC.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194898319/
Tag: Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives
Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013
Another judgments from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in DVC on brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
State Vs Prem Kumar (Brother In Law) on 30 April, 2013
Dr Kamini Lau, has levied Rs.5,000 to be deducted from the salary of the officer of the Prosecution Department responsible for violating and ignoring the directions issued by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi Government PP had routinely approved to file a revision and got this treatment.
Excellent !!!
Sukhamay Mondal Vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 August, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta has gladly set aside the Rejection of Discharge petition under 239 CrPC and discharged accused other than husband.
[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”]
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013
Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.
Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc
The index page is here.
Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012
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.
From Para 8,
….
However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.
Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 577], [2012 AIOL 2078], [2013 CRLJ SC 3644], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 969], [2013 SCC 14 374], [2012 SCC CRI 4 426], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2013 CRILJ 3644], [2013 AD SC 2 565], [2013 AJR 4 643], [2013 DMC SC 1 1], [2012 JT SC 12 390], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 959], [2012 SCALE 12 692], [2013 UC 1 155], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 577], [2013 CRI LJ 3644]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151787634/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af17e4b014971141594d
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/chandralekha-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-anr
Rajeti Laxmi Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 July, 2006
One good judgment from High Court of Andhra Pradesh which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in this judgment, reminded about the menace of roping in all relatives of husband into false litigation while granting anticipatory bail to relatives of husband.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/tahmeena-kaleem-others-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh/86139
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Tahmeena-Kaleem-and-Others-Versus-State-of-Andhra-Pradesh-2014-01-17
K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
A recent 2018 quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of 498A based on the allegations made on maternal uncles, prima facie, not making out any case as alleged.
From Paras 4 and 5,
4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.
5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.
Citations: [2018 SCC 14 452], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1080], [2018 AIR SC 4009]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85067403/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b7c448e9eff436a94f01d47
Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 26 April 2000
Supreme court held that one should discourage the tendency to rope in all relations in dowry cases.
For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.
Citations: [2000 JT SC 5 223], [2000 ACR SC 2 1263], [2000 SCC CRI 0 935], [2000 EASTCRIC 2 698], [2000 RCR CRIMINALINAL 2 695], [2000 SCC CR 0 935], [2000 RCR CRI 2 696], [2000 SCC 5 207], [2000 RCR CRI 2 695], [2000 CCR 2 156], [2000 AIR SC 2324 1], [2000 PLJR 3 68], [2000 ALLMR CRI 0 1180], [2000 MLJ CRI 1 844], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 SLT 4 162], [2002 CLJ 0 2993], [2000 SCR 3 662], [2000 ACC 41 3], [2000 ALD CRI 2 467], [2002 SCC 5 207], [2000 CRI LJ 2993], [2000 LW CRL 2 660], [2000 JIC 2 353], [2000 AIR SC 0 2093], [2000 SRJ 10 330], [2000 ALD CRL 2 467], [2000 SCALE 3 429], [2000 KERLT 2 42], [2000 CRLLJ 2993], [2000 CRLJ 0 2993], [2000 RENTCR 2 695], [2000 AIR SC 2324], [2002 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 JCRIC 2 665], [2000 DMC SC 1 645], [2000 SCC 5 2007], [2000 SUPREME 3 554], [2000 CRIMES 2 213]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1263837/
