K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018

Posted on August 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018

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

Relatives of husband acquitted of charge under Section 498-A IPC on finding allegations to be omnibus and unspecific: SC

D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State of Tamilnadu on 2 January, 2018

Posted on August 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,

From Para 10,

Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners. In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.

D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State By on 2 January, 2018

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Justice J.B.PARDIWALA, at Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Excellent analysis and dissection of cunning knife’s mind.

Funny Anecdote #1:

Establishing Jurisdiction:
The sum and substance of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, but as usual, all other family members have been roped in as accused persons. The applicant No.2, Dipikaben, is the wife of the applicant No.1’s brother. I am told that Dipikaben is a widow and she is residing independently at Padra of District Baroda. Dipikaben has a daughter aged about 20 years. The applicant No.3 Hetalben is the niece of the applicant No.1, and is residing at her matrimonial home at Gotri. The applicant No.3 got married in the year 2006, and before her marriage, was residing at Delhi. The applicants Nos. 4 and 5 are the husband and wife, and both are residing at Delhi. The applicant No.4 is one of the brothers of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.6, who is the sister of the applicant No.1, is residing at her matrimonial home at Baroda.

Funny Anecdote #2:

Delay in filing Complaint/FIR:
It appears on a plain reading of the FIR that on her own admission, she had stayed at her matrimonial home upto the year 2004, and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. The respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R after a period of four years thereafter i.e. in 2009.

Legal Point #1:

When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

One more:

Although the respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet.

Legal Point #3

Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged.

One more here

In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC.

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

Posted on July 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Again this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a woman living with a married man, can not be called his relative, for the purpose of IPC 498Aa and hence charge of harassment can not be laid on her by knife.

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012

Posted on July 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a border-case judgment, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held so,

In the above facts and circumstances and with reference to the law as laid down by the apex court, for purposes of Section 498A of the IPC, though it may not be essential that a legally valid marriage is established, it was necessary to establish that the petitioner and the complainant had lived together as husband and wife. In this regard, there is sadly no evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, even the wider definition applied to the expressions ‘husband’ and ‘marriage’ with reference to the decisions of the apex court referred to hereinabove would not come to the aid of the prosecution.

S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016

Posted on June 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, proceedings against sisters-in-law of the knife under 498A, 3/4 DP Act are quashed due to “no clear allegations have been levelled by respondent no.2 – Sonia Gupta against any of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6”

Interesting point:

Investigation for dowry harassment on the applicants is done 4 times, and 3 Final Closure reports are submitted in this case.

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple case on allegations not meeting the criterion on IPC 498A is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this 482 quash judgment.

When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation(a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case.
We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty.

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Citations : [2010 SCC CRI 1 1412], [2009 AIOL 863], [2009 SCC 14 466], [2009 SUPREME 5 281], [2009 ANJ SC SUPP 2 55], [2009 JT 8 617], [2009 SCR 9 1187], [2009 SCALE 9 70], [2009 AIC SC 80 192], [2009 ECRN SC 3 818]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/437533/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c59

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Manju Ram Kalita Vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009

Posted on May 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Supreme Court of India revisits the evidences submitted at the trial court stage and overturns the conviction under 498A due to no material evidence in regards to cruelty under the statutes of IPC 498A.

Key point on delay in filing the complaint

The complaint of cruelty was lodged by filing an FIR on 23.5.1997 i.e. after four years of leaving the matrimonial home. More so, the mental or physical torture was not continuous on the part of the appellant as there is no complaint against him between 1993 to 1997 i.e. leaving the matrimonial home by the wife and performing the second marriage by the husband.

Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009

Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another wonderful Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari ji, quashing the false IPC 498A case due to no specific allegations on the accused.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Citation: [(2010) 7 SCC 667], [AIR 2010 SC 3363], [2010 SCC CR 3 473], [2010 SCALE 8 131], [2010 ALLMR CRI 0 2947], [2010 RCR CRI 4 45], [2010 CRLJ 0 4303], [2010 SCJ 6 609], [2010 AD SC 9 28], [2010 AIR SC 4975], [2011 MLJ CRI 2 89], [2010 JT 8 410], [2010 SLT 6 7], [2010 DMC 2 387], [2010 SUPREME 6 312], [2010 OCR 47 367], [2010 AIOL 501], [2010 ANJ SC 2 202], [2010 CRIMES SC 4 19], [2010 SCC 7 66], [2010 SCC CRI 3 473], [2011 AIC 99 149], [2010 GUJ LH 3 258], [2010 CRI LJ 4303]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee0e4b0149711414fdd

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed

K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018

D.Gowthaman Babu Vs State of Tamilnadu on 2 January, 2018

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010

S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Manju Ram Kalita Vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009

Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010