Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025

Posted on September 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that IPC 420 and IPC 406 offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

From Para 21,

21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415, punishable under Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra and Ors on 24 April 2020

Posted on August 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Daughter-in-law launched a pressure tactic (supreme court’s words) against her in-laws and husband but had to eat dirt in the end. Since the complaint was filed after more than limitation period of 3 years, the 498A case was quashed.

Trivia: No launching of criminal proceedings for filing a false case.

Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra and Ors on 24 April 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Posted on January 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.

As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 12 October, 2007

Posted on January 3, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court had quashed the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007

Citations: [2007 (4) JCC 3074]

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Posted on October 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, which laid down the law that under CrPC 482, High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable case such as 498A and 406 IPC.

From Para 13-15,

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V Rao v. L.H.V Prasad 2000 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the code.

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Citations : [2003 ACR SC 2 1305], [2003 AIR SC 1386], [2003 ALD CRI 1 842], [2003 ALR 51 222], [2003 ALT CRI 2 60], [2003 ALT SC 5 4], [2003 CALLT SC 3 32], [2003 CGLJ 2 35], [2003 CTC 3 54], [2003 DMC SC 1 524], [2003 GLH 2 351], [2003 JKJ SC 2 439], [2003 JT SC 3 277], [2003 KLT SC 2 1062], [2003 OLR 2 101], [2003 RCR CRIMINAL 2 888], [2003 SCALE 3 214], [2003 SCC 4 675], [2003 SCR 2 1104], [2003 UC 2 827], [2003 UJ 2 953], [2003 SCC CRI 848], [2003 CRI LJ 2028]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/469138/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc9e4b0149711412459

Another landmark judgment which cites this judgment is here.

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Posted on September 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.

Highlights

Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra

He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994.
He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore.
talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you.
If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.
Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.
she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me.
In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.

Law point from Para 10,

It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

From Para 19,

Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.

Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007

Citations: [2007 SUPREME 8 405], [2008 SCC 2 561], [2008 CRLJ 0 1391], [2008 AIR SC 204], [2008 RCR CRI 1 336], [2008 SCC 1 65], [2007 STPL LE 0 39378], [2008 SCC CRI 1 507], [2008 AD SC 2 398], [2008 BLJR 56 753], [2008 MADLW CRL 2 955], [2008 ACC 60 694], [2008 SCC CRL 1 507], [2008 JT 1 20], [2008 LW CRL 2 955], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1360], [2008 ALT CRI 3 83], [2008 AIR SC 96], [2008 MAHLJ CRI 2 550], [2008 SCC CR 1 507], [2008 CRIMES 1 42], [2008 DRJ 100 3], [2008 UJ 1 107], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 686], [2008 SLT 1 329], [2007 AIOL 1302], [2008 ANJ SC 1 124], [2008 CRLJ SC 1351], [2007 SCALE 14 403], [2007 SCR 13 716], [2008 AIC SC 62 155], [2008 CRI LJ 1391]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907093/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae46e4b01497114135e4

State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Posted on September 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a short revision order from hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that due to limitation restriction, the complaint was time barred and as such Magistrate was right in not taking cognizance of this case. The knife filed 498A case after separating from husband for 10-12 years!!!

And the sweet response from the judge for the assertion that “498A IPC is a continuing offence” was, It is not so.

State Vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is classic case of non-application of judicial mind all all levels of a criminal case proceedings, until the Hon’ble Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the allegations in this case do not attract ingredients of IPC 498A or IPC 406 and thereby quashed the entire proceedings for good.

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498-A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.
9. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the charge-sheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as contained in Section 405 IPC. In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants. This is a case where there is a total absence of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC. In the matter on hand, the allegations made in the first information report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the appellant-accused. So also the uncontroverted allegations found against the appellants do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out a case against the accused. The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed.

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

The AP High Court order is here.

Citations : [2017 SCC 9 413], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1049], [2017 AIR SC 4434], [2017 ALLCC 101 359], [2017 CCR SC 4 140], [2017 DMCSC 3 529], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 4 113], [2017 SCALE 11 131], [2017 SCC CRI 3 740]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164920459/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59b03f0fce686e45ff91df85

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/varala-bharath-kumar-vs-the-state-of-telangana-998

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014

Posted on August 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this quash judgment under CrPC 482 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main contention of IPC 406 was not even entertained on the distant relative of husband.

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014

Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010

Posted on June 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: IPC 406 – Not Made Out

Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025

Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra and Ors on 24 April 2020

M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018

Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 12 October, 2007

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014

Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010