Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is fill of junk vague and non-specific allegations.
Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522
The Index of these cases is here.
In a rare act, Justice Satyanarayan Murthy has given a Quash order in a false 498A IPC case. He also invoked AP Dowry Prohibition Rule 1998 which are available here.
Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018Citations:
Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114175976/
This is an acquittal judgment of a friend who went through the rigors of the Criminal trial of a false 498A IPC case and came out acquitted with flying colors.
Was a Discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C., within the horizon?
I make an legal argument below to say that, this is a fit criminal case for a Discharge and list the grounds as well. Probably would have saved many years of time for both the parties and the Court. Even then, there are good number of legal weapons available to ensure, we return the favor to the false-case complainant.
This is just for academic reasons only. Not to insult the judgment of the parties involved, in their decision-making to go to face full trial.
A legal (academic) Argument for a Discharge from a Criminal case
General Assessment of Judgment: From Para 15 onwards, almost all below observations of Magistrate from the evidence of witness are the sole contents coming from witness statements under 161 CrPC as well as the contents from Original complaint/FIR/ Charge Sheet, which are sufficient to raise in Discharge Petition as contradicting and not supporting the case of the Complainant. Frankly, this shows the incompetency of the IO to arrive at ac conclusion that this case is a fit case to file B-Closure report (or he may have sold out his integrity or was routinely in that business, not sure which one)
Inconsistency in saying the marriage year.
Inconsistency in the list of places the newly wed couple went to.
As noted in Ground #1, no details around the dates of all allegations
Continuing the marital relations with A1 to the point that, despite severe allegations of physical and mental harassment, the complainant conceives a baby.
About the fact that Complainant was at her parent’s home all the while, but she claims A1 harassed her physically. How is that thing, humanly possible?
PW2 testimony (clearly in sync with his 161 Statement) is loud and clear that he is a hearsay witness
Nowhere the Security guards talk about direct knowledge/eye witness to cruelty of A1 on Complainant.
Serious lapses in the investigation of IO is vivid and regrettable. Not examining the people who could support the prosecution narrative would be looked at as incompetency
Learned APP cited judgment of Bombay High Court in a proceeding pending in Tadepalligudem Magistrate Court. This signifies that there is absolute avenue to present other state High Court judgments in current state proceedings and we do NOT need Supreme Court precedents, all the time.
Ground #1: From Para 2, Dash and Dash was given as dowry. Nice. To whom? Later accused started harassing her physically and mentally (When?) and …. and abused her in filthy language (When?) and also suspected her character (When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements) and …. and accused denied paternity of child (Why? When? Any Witnesses supporting this view in their 161 CrPC Statements)
Is all the BS above, not failing 212 CrPC?
Ground #2: From Para 21, even magistrate says, the allegation in the prosecution documents are “bald and omnibus allegations by PW1, prosecution failed to adduce any specific allegation that accused harassed PW1 physically and mentally”
Ground #3: From Para 22, No specific details of dates of physical assault or injuries on the self. Magistrate observe that as per explanation (a) of section 498-A IPC, the cruelly must be such extent which drive the woman to commit suicide.
From Para 23, same point mentioned above in Ground #1 is observed by Magistrate too. With whom is the damn Dowry deposited?
Ground #4: A casual perusal at the list of exhibits/evidences marked is sufficient to hold that there was not ONE evidence brought in by Prosecution, especially the IO. Tell-tale sign of baseless case, as put forward by IO.
Given that this author has NOT perused the complete 207 CrPC documents, the assessment done hereinabove, is evident enough to say that, this case too had quite a few irrefutable legal grounds to pursue the remedy of Discharge from this false litigation u/s 239 CrPC.
State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019It is strongly believed by the author that, every second lost in futile trial of a case, is a undeniable tragedy of loss of time, that the Accused can never get back.
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
Gujarat High Court has held that as no source of funds could be proved from which Dowry amount is given to accused, the accused are acquitted from Dowry allegations and there by IPC 498A is not made out.
Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010
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
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/
Citations: [(2012) 10 SCC 741]
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
Bad Behavior has blocked 369 access attempts in the last 7 days.
