Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018

Posted on December 12, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Citations:

Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114175976/

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

State of TS Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

Posted on June 26, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

It 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.

State of AP Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

M.M. Malhotra Vs Union of India And Ors on 4 October, 2005

Posted on March 4, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that the offence of 498A was not made out in this case. It has a checkered history. See the tantrums of knife.

in the year 1990, she came to know that the appellant had developed illicit relations with one Miss Anna Suja John when he was posted at Trivandrum.
The appellant started beating her brutally and torturing her mercilessly because of Miss Anna Suja John.
It was further stated in the complaint that in the year 1991 itself, Miss Anna Suja John came to Nagpur and started staying with the appellant and complainant Mrs. Roopa Malhotra at their residence at Nagpur.
The complainant strongly objected to this and requested the appellant not to have any relationship with Miss Anna Suja John and told her to leave Nagpur. When complainant could not bear the torture, she sought an interview with the then Air Marshal I.G. Krishna, HQ Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force and narrated her plight to him.
brother of the appellant came to Nagpur and told the complainant that if she files a complaint against her husband, his career would be spoiled. He also promised that Miss Anna Suja John would go back to Kerala.
When the complainant had gone to Kanpur she saw Miss Anna Suja John with her child residing in the parental house of the appellant at Kanpur.
The appellant abused the complainant in front of Miss Anna Suja John in filthy language.
When they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John used to sleep in one room and complainant was asked to sleep in another room. At Kanpur, the appellant told the complainant that he and Miss Anna Suja John are married. While they were at Kanpur, appellant and Miss Anna Suja John were behaving as husband and wife and going to hotels and various other places together. The same thing continued at Nagpur.
The complainant tried her best to keep her nineteen years’ old marriage intact.

Now the hubby dear responds to the complaint filed against him

In the communication it was indicated that Mrs. Roopa Malhotra @ Ruby Basu had filed written statement on 1.10.1992 in Regular Civil Suit no. 887/1992 filed by the appellant wherein she had stated that she was already married to one D.J. Basu, her husband. The marriage was subsisting at the time when she married the appellant.
It is to be noted that the said suit was filed by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant Roopa was not his wife as her spouse was living on the date they started living as husband and wife. Suit was decreed on 19.6.1993.
It was appellant’s stand that in view of the said statement he should not be required to submit his explanation in view of Rule 16(4) of the Rules.
The appellant submitted that there was no plural marriage as so-called marriage was non existent in the eyes of law. Since there was no valid marriage at the first instance the question of plural marriage did not arise.
The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and held that the conduct of the appellant was unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force like Air Force.

M.M. Malhotra Vs Union of India And Ors on 4 October, 2005

Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Posted on September 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in this Criminal Revision that the parents-in-law of the knife cannot be forced to undergo criminal trial as no specific allegations supported by evidence is available on record.

See the cunning nature of this knife. Got 15 lakhs as settlement amount even then tried to implicate in-laws!!

From Para 9,

The charge sheet which was filed by the police clearly discloses that the husband of the complainant was residing in Nigeria and he could not be traced. The charge sheet also took note of the fact that during the course of investigation, when the petitioners had prayed for bail, the dispute was settled between them and the complainant on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the order of the High Court. The complainant had accepted such amount towards settlement of her matrimonial disputes. Initially an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was deposited with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court but on the request of the complainant, the same was released in her favour. The complainant who is present in person admits of her having received the aforesaid amount.

From Para 28, 29,

The FIR clearly makes out a case of the husband of the complainant not treating her well. The complainant went to Nigeria, only to find that her husband was in the habit of drinking alcohol and watching pornographic films. The house in which the complainant was kept was shared by other relatives of the husband. There is no mention of the petitioners having gone to Nigeria to stay with their son or with the complainant. The averments made in the FIR further disclose that the tall claims of the family of the petitioners was found to be false during the period when the complainant had the opportunity to stay in the matrimonial family. Though it is stated that she was insinuated and taunted for bringing less dowry and was made to do household work as if she was a maid servant of the house, but no specific instance of such acts of cruelty have been listed by the complainant. A vague and general allegation has been raised that she was not treated well in her matrimonial home when she came back from Nigeria. The FIR also refers to the assessment of the complainant that the petitioners did not want her to come back to India.
Apart from this, admittedly, the complainant accepted Rs.15 lakhs towards settlement of her matrimonial dues. The husband of the complainant who is the son of the petitioners is untraceable.

A protracted investigation in the matter also did not yield any definitive finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The petitioners were not sent up for trial.

Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.

From Para 14,

Assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence on record as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge indicated that the appellant was beating the deceased under intoxication of liquor, there is no indication that such beating was with a view to force the deceased either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury to her life, limb or health. It is not the say of any of the witnesses that the deceased at any point of time attempted to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. Therefore, the torture of physical beating by the appellant as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be treated as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A to find him guilty for the said charge.

Read the Para 16 too. It nails the prosecution case.

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

But, 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.

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that, it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A.

From Para 3,

After going through her evidence it does not appear that she has conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants. The trial Court has discussed this aspect at some length and has recorded a finding that offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is not established. I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in my revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant, particularly when the State has not challenged the impugned order.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Calcutta held that,

On scrutiny of the statement of witnesses like Sekhar Kar, Ramesh Saha and Shankar Roy recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture by the present petitioners. However, on close scrutiny of all the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on consideration of the allegation made in the written complaint treated as FIR, I do not find any specific role attributed to the present petitioners in inflicting mental torture or physically assault on the opposite party no.2. The allegation made against the present petitioners are vague and general in nature.

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017

Posted on September 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the quash judgment from hon’ble high court of Karnataka, relying on Y Abhraham Ajith case, wherein it was held that when all allegations are stated to have happened at Vellore, Tamilnadu, Indiranagar police doesn’t have jurisdiction to file the FIR in Bengaluru, Karnataka.

G. Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017

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

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: IPC 498a Not Made Out

Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018

State of TS Vs Pathakota Venkata Mohan Rao on 6 March, 2019

M.M. Malhotra Vs Union of India And Ors on 4 October, 2005

Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017

State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017