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.
Trivia: No launching of criminal proceedings for filing a false case.
Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra and Ors on 24 April 2020Sensible Judge understood the nefarious arrangement between two parties to marriage, more as a contract to immigrate to Canada. AB granted.
Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.
It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.
Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.
Here are the guidelines.
It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.
Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014
Citations: [
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/
This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.
Taking cue from Geeta Mehrotra judgment here, Punjab High Court has quashed proceedings on relatives living far away in Canada taking a ground that no specific allegation are in the complaint.
Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020Citations: [2]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12422589/
Smt. S.D. Javalgekar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5) Sangli delivered this judgment.
Para 23,
State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 201823. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to the version of the complainant, it should also be corroborated by other supportive evidence. In absence of such evidence vague allegations of the complainant cannot be taken as true. There are many instances in society wherein females of mischievous nature spoil the family peace by making false allegations and by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in the offence. From the discussion above, I find no substance in the various allegations of the complainant. Hence, I hold that accused persons are innocent and not liable for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Citations:
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 Maharashtra Vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh on 26 February 2020
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
My favorite Judge, Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had delivered this gem of an order.
Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 20089. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong-doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.
Citations: [154 (2008) DLT 411],
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66a48607dba6b53436039
The appeal filed at Supreme Court is available here.
Punjab and Haryana High Court has held thus,
Anoop and Ors Vs Vani Shree on 05 August 2014The term domestic violence encompasses a variety of criminal offences. These intra family offences are however are generally between immediate family members but not extended family members or non blood relatives. The phrase ‘domestic violence’ has to be understood in context of ‘domestic relationship and ‘shared household’, and therefore, the reliefs as aforesaid are meaningful only against the persons with whom the person aggrieved shares a ‘domestic relationship’ and a ‘shared household’. However, it has become an unfortunate trend to implead even the distant relatives in such like cases. To this extent at least, the law designed for protection of women is being misused for ulterior motives. It is often argued that the Act has given an undue advantage to the women and is most lethal weapon which women can use to exploit, extort and threaten not only the husband and his family but also his distant relatives. The law thus is being used to terrorise the husbands, their families and distant relatives and this phenomenon has now acquired the name of ‘Legal Terrorism’ and rightly so, given the extent of its misuse, particularly against the distant relatives of the husband as in the instant case.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66869607dba6b534329fe
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
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,
Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007Section 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.
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
In this Writ Petition by Sushil Kumar Sharma, which was dismissed though, had this prayer,
By this petition purported to have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) prayer is to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations.
And,
Further prayer is made that whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations. This according to the petitioner, would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Several instances have been highlighted to show as to how commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has been made with oblige motive and with a view to harass the husband, in-laws and relatives.
Here is the legal terrorism comment,
The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignonymy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra-vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins’ weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre- conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
And it was dismissed like this,
Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005Prayer has been made to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the ‘CBI’) in certain matters where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused. We do not find any substance in this plea. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence, he can do so in the trial, if held.
Citations: [2005 ALLMR SC 5 982], [2005 SCR 730], [2006 CRLR 44], [2005 SRJ 8 90], [2005 CRLJ 0 3439], [2005 CRI LJ 3439], [2005 RCR CRI 3 745], [2005 SCC CR 0 1473], [2005 AIOL 300], [2005 CCR 3 43], [2005 KERLT 3 611], [2005 JT 6 266], [2005 CRLR 661], [2005 SCALE 5 523], [2005 MLJ CRI 1 887], [2005 ALLMR 5 982], [2006 CALCRILR 44], [2005 SLT 5 438], [2005 JCRIC 2 1193], [2005 ALD CRI 2 633], [2005 DMC 2 325], [2005 SCJ 5 303], [2005 SCC 6 281], [2005 AIR SC 3100], [2005 SCC CRI 0 1473], [2005 AIR SC 0 3569], [2005 UJ SC 2 1057], [2005 SUPREME 5 137]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172674/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae15e4b0149711412e70
