Daily Archives: June 15, 2015

Wife ropes in husband & his family. Sister in law runs & gets quash/discharge. Women amoung most tortured in false 498a

This discharge was ordered Just a month ago, Mid May 2015. So EVEN after Arnesh Kumar, Even after the Honourable courts speaking heavily against false and frivolous cases, cases filed to harass the husband, errant wives keep filing such cases

Unfortunately in many instances, women, like Sisters in law, Mother in law etc are the main victims

In this case a sister in law is forced to run for quash, even though there is NO proof of cruelty by her. This is what the honourable court has to say in this case : “…..if evidence collected in course of enquiry is appreciated and scrutinized in its entirety , it would appear that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, who is unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant except casual reference of her name at some places. In any view, in a matrimonial dispute, without allegation of any active involvement in the matter, it would not be proper to put the petitioner on trial. In course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that presently the petitioner is married and is residing at her matrimonial home. In my view, allowing the prosecution to continue against her, would be counterproductive and it may even ruin her matrimonial life…..”

The Hon. High court also goes on to say “…12. Misuse of section 498A of I.P.C. in may cases has been judicially noticed by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts. It has been highlighted in those judgments that keeping in view the social objective behind the section, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that the complaints filed with false or exaggerated allegations out of ulterior motives or in a fit of emotion should be curbed …..”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50645 of 2012
******************************************************
1. Binny Kumari D/O Sri Parashnath Singh R/O Village- Rewa Basatpur
(Southern), P.S- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur.     …. ….  Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Saroj Devi W/O Krishna Kumar And D/O Sri Lalan At Present Resident
Of Village- Kaithwalia, P.O- Darmaha, P.S- Kalyanpur, District- East
Champaran.  …. …. Opposite Party/s
******************************************************
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s   :  Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s  : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No.2 A.P.P.
******************************************************
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

13-05-2015

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and O.P. no.2.

2. The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.09.2012 passed in Trial No. 3649 of 2012 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1561 of 2011 by which finding a prima facie case to be made out for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner and three others have been summoned to face trial.

3. The prosecution story, as described in the complaint petition, in short, is that the complainant Saroj Devi was married to Shri Krishna Kumar Singh on 06.06.2010. In the traditional wedding ceremony attendant festivities and formalities substantial amount was spent by the father of the complainant. About one month after the marriage, the accused persons started demanding Rs. 100000/-in cash and a motorcycle. They subjected her to cruelty in various ways so that she may compel her father to fulfill their illegal demand. It has further been stated that the husband of the complainant is employed in the Indian Army and while he was going to join at the place of his posting, he instigated the other family members to behave in a manner so that the complainant may be left with no option but to fulfill the illegal demand. Thereafter the accused persons subjected her cruelty in various ways. She was abused and assaulted by the accused persons in her matrimonial home. On 05.10.2010, while she was pregnant, she was taken on a jeep by the petitioner and her father and was dropped at her parent’s house. They forbade her to come back to her matrimonial home. They kept all her belongings and ornaments with themselves. It has been stated that on 13.03.2011 the complainant gave birth to a baby at a Private Nursing Hospital at Muzaffarpur. All the accused persons had knowledge about the same but they failed to take any care of the complainant or the newly born baby.

4. In support of the allegations made in the complaint she was examined on oath and apart from the complainant four other witnesses were also examined in course of enquiry conducted under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After examining the complainant and four enquiry witnesses the learned S.D.J.M, Motiharti passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2012 whereby the husband of the complainant, the petitioner (sister of the complainant’s husband) and their parents have been summoned.

5. It has been contended that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her husband in which the other family members have unnecessarily been dragged. It has further been contended that there is no truth behind the allegation of subjecting the complainant to any sort of cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. It is submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was not even married. She had no say in the day-to-day matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband. There is no specific allegation against her in the complaint petition. There is only a passing reference of her name and a general and omnibus allegation against her that she also participated in subjecting the complainant to cruelty along with the other accused persons. It is submitted that in the statement on oath, in reply to the court question, the complainant has stated that she does not want to go to her matrimonial home. She has not uttered a word against the petitioner in her deposition. The two other inquiry witnesses, namely, Lalan Kunwar, father of the complainant and Baban Kunwar, uncle of the complainant have also not made any specific allegation against the petitioner. The remaining two witnesses namely, Jitendra Singh and Birejdra Kumar Singh are co-villagers and even in their deposition also no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid submission,, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned S.D.J.M, has erroneously summoned the petitioner in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence collected in course of enquiry.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the O.P. no.2 has submitted that though there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the statement of the complainant or in the statement of witnesses recorded in course of enquiry but in the complaint petition it has categorically been stated that on 05.10.2010 the complainant was taken on a jeep by the petitioner and her father and they dropped her at her matrimonial home. They had also threatened the complainant not to come back to her matrimonial home. Hence, he has submitted that there is evidence on the basis of which ingredients of the offences are attracted. He has also submitted that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioner also along with others to have subjected the complainant to cruelty for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

8. Learned counsel for the State has also adopted the submission made by the learned counsel for the O.P. no.2.

9. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. Though the contents of the complaint made out a prima facie case against the husband of the complainant and some other family member, but if evidence collected in course of enquiry is appreciated and scrutinized in its entirety , it would appear that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, who is unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant except casual reference of her name at some places. In any view, in a matrimonial dispute, without allegation of any active involvement in the matter, it would not be proper to put the petitioner on trial. In course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that presently the petitioner is married and is residing at her matrimonial home. In my view, allowing the prosecution to continue against her, would be counterproductive and it may even ruin her matrimonial life.

10. Recognizing the rising trend of matrimonial dispute, the Apex Court in G.B. Rao Vs. L.H.V Prasad reported in (2000)3 SCC 693 observed in Para 12 as under:

12. 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.”

11. The view taken by the Apex Court in that matter was that the court would not encourage such dispute. At this stage, I am tempted to take note of the fact of yet another case before the Apex Court (Geeta Mehrotra V. State of U.P. reported in 2012(10) SCC 741). In that case there was matrimonial dispute between wife and husband. The wife lodged an F.I.R against her husband and family members including the accused Geeta Marhotra, the unmarried sister. She filed an application for quashing of the cognizance on several grounds before the High Court. One of the grounds was that a prima facie case was not attracted against her in absence of specific allegation. The High Court declined to interfere in the matter. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Apex Court in appeal. After hearing the parties, in paragraph 27, the Apex Court held as under:

“27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”

12. Misuse of section 498A of I.P.C. in may cases has been judicially noticed by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts. It has been highlighted in those judgments that keeping in view the social objective behind the section, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that the complaints filed with false or exaggerated allegations out of ulterior motives or in a fit of emotion should be curbed .

13. Recently, the Apex Court equated misuse of the section to “legal terrorism” and said it was being treated as a “weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives.”

14. The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 even reminded the learned members of the Bar that as they owe enormous social responsibility and obligation for ensuring social fiber of family life, they ought not to advice presentation of exaggerated version of small incidents so that ever grooming tendency of one complaint giving rise to multiple cases should be curbed. Treating every complaint under 498 A as basic human problem the Apex Court observed that the advocates must make serious endeavor to help the parties in arriving at an amicable solution.

15. In Preeti Gupta & another (Supra) in paras 30, 32, 33 and 34 the Apex Court went on to hold:

“30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

31. x x x x x x x x

32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.”

16. When I look to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the background of legal principles set out by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the petitioner in the interest of justice.

17 Accordingly, the order dated 11.09.2012 passed in Trial No. 3649 of 2012 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1561 of 2011 by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed.

18. Consequently, the application stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

M.Rahman/-

U      T

Compendium of FALSE 498A cases condemned by Courts

  • History is made not only by victories, it is made up of pain and suffering of innocents, it’s written with the blood sweat and tears of the honest and harmless.
  • False 498a cases, false rape, False DV and similar cases are a dark chapter in the history of this glorious country
  • I think we are all living thru this history, acting important parts in this divine drama. Some live to win, some laugh it out, some aren’t all that fortunate, but we are all making history, nevertheless
  • As a tribute to the many fighters who have been leading this path, who have lived thru this history day and night, as a tribute to the mothers and father arrested, to the many sleepless nights honest souls lay crying, I’m starting a thread to collect all Judgements where courts have come down upon misuse of 498A, Misuse of DV act, False rapes cases and the like.
  • I hope there are at least 50~60 such cases by various High courts and Supreme court over the last 15 or so years (many predating the famous Sushil kumar Sharma / Legal terrorism Judgement)
  • Also we are NOT just talking of 498a, we are also talking of false rape and the like which have become all too common these days
  • From a more practical standpoint, this will be ready reckoner of judgements that can be used by us in our personal cases or used If we were called for a TV or media debate or even to discuss the depth of the matter with newcomers
  • I’m starting with the following classic cases that came handy. Please add your suggested cases as comments below.
  • I plan to keep editing / adding cases here
  • Thanks in advance to all those who can add / contribute to this thread.

Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand And Ors.
19 May, 2003
Delhi High Court
JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J.

498A law worse than disease. Make 498a bailable. Don’t rope-in every relative. Delhi HC in 2003! YES 12 years ago.

….These provisions were though made with good intentions but the implementation has left a very bad taste and the move has been counter productive. There is a growing tendency amongst the women which is further perpetuated by their parents and relatives to rope in each and every relative-including minors and even school going kids nearer or distant relatives and in some cases against every person of the family of the husband whether living away or in other town or abroad and married, unmarried sisters, ‘sister-in-laws, unmarried brothers, married uncles and in some cases grand-parents or as many as 10 to 15 or even more relatives of the husband. Once a complaint is lodged under Sections 498A/406 IPC whether there are vague, unspecific or exaggerated allegations or there is no evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like Crime Against Women Cell to hound them with the threat of arrest making them run here and there and force them to hide at their friends or relatives houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands of such complaints and cases are pending and are being lodged day in and day out…”

“….27. It is rightly said sometimes the remedies are worse than the perils or disease. Having seen and experienced the enforcement of these laws for decades, time has come to take stock and review them as thousands of marriages have been sacrificed at the altar of this provision. In one metropolis alone, thousands divorce cases arising from the cases under Section 498A/406 IPC are pending in Courts. There are equal or more number of marriages which are in limbo. What else is it if not a social catastrophy ?…”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/498a-law-worse-than-disease-make-498a-bailable-dont-rope-in-every-relative-delhi-hc-in-2003-yes-12-years-ago/


Saritha vs R. Ramachandra
9 July, 2002
Andhra High Court
ORDER B.S.A. Swamy, J.

Wife refuses to live with husband in spite of husband & Hon. Court taking every effort to save the marriage. Court even request the couple to stay at a resort for a week, wife returns from the stay, says enjoyed her time, but still wants divorce. Then wife files a false 498a which the court openly condemns

….5. During hearing, we came to know that the appellant filed a criminal case against the respondent and his entire family under Section 498-A IPC. From the conduct of the appellant we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant being at fault wants to misuse the process of law and harass the respondent and his family members for the sin of marrying her. We never expected that women would be of such a character in this country. Even though the respondent expressed so much magnanimity towards her, without ill-will or rancor and extended his arm to lead a happy marital life, the appellant just threw away the offer with her little finger. The criminal Court shall take up the case for trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within on month from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of dismissal of the criminal case as a foisted one and the allegations are far from truth, it is always open to the respondent to take appropriate criminal action on the appellant as well as her parents for implicating them in a false case and making them to come all the way from New Delhi to Hyderabad to attend the Courts.

….6. This Court would like to go on record that for nothing the educated women are approaching the Courts for divorce and resorting to proceedings against their in-laws under Section 498-A IPC implicating not only the husbands but also their family members whether they are in India or abroad. This is nothing but abuse of beneficial provisions intended to save the women from unscrupulous husbands. But it has taken a reverse trend now. In some cases this type of action is coming as a formidable hurdle in reconciliation efforts made by either well meaning people or the Courts and the sanctity attached to the mandate that the Courts shall always try to save the marriage through conciliatory efforts till the last, are being buried deep-neck.

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/wife-refuses-to-live-with-husband-in-spite-of-husband-hon-court-taking-every-effort-to-save-the-marriage-then-wife-files-a-false-498a-which-the-court-openly-condemns/


Pandurang Katti S/O Srinivasa Katti vs State Of Karnatka By Basvanugudi Police
15 April, 2005
Karnataka High Court
ORDER A.C. Kabbin, J.

Whaaat? a 65 year old lady beat up an independent young woman who is state cricket player and software engineer? How property matters and a mother in law’s stay for a few days ends up as a criminal case !!

…27. In the present case it is crystal clear that the dispute was not regarding any demand by petitioners for dowry but regarding dispute of ownership of flat and site. This dispute is also between only petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 . In fact the memos of understanding not only confirm it, but show that respondent No. 2 was given possession of ornament in the locker. The dispute regarding the sharing of the expenses of the child is the second reason for the complaint. Another factor which lead to the complaint appears to be arrival of the mother in law who had safely kept away from the couple for 3 1/2 years. Her brief stay for one or two days brought her into difficulties…..

….25. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha it is observed that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment and that the court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances before issuing process lest would be an instrument in hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly.

…26. In the case of Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Shitul H Chanchani and Anr. it was held that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even when the allegation of the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to abuse of the process of the court

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/65-year-old-lady-beat-up-an-young-state-cricket-player-and-software-engineer-how-property-anger-end-up-as-a-criminal-case/


Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors
19 July, 2005
Supreme Court of India
JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J.

A PIL is filed in 2005 seeking courts order “….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…..”

The Honourable court opines “..…The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. 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 obligue motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery….

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/sushil-kumar-sharma-vs-union-of-india-hon-supreme-court-misuse-of-law-unleashes-legal-terrorism/


Rajeev Verma And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
5 March, 2004
Allahabad High Court
JUDGMENT : Sushil Harkauli, J.

Entire families accused u/s 498a. Old women languish in Jail. Magistrates refuse bail fearing public outcry. Resort to criminal prosecution leads to breakdown of marriage.

…Reports from the subordinate Courts indicate that entire families of the accused, including old women are languishing in jail for days till they are granted bail by the Sessions Courts or the High Court because Magistrates have become fearful of granting bail in these cases because of public outcry even though the case is only punishable with imprisonment up to three years….

Note from the blogger: Pl note the court talks of making 498a compoundable and NOT bailable in this case!

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/entire-families-accused-us-498a-old-women-languish-in-jail-magistrates-refuse-bail-fearing-public-outcry-criminal-prosecution-leads-to-breakdown-of-marriage/


Lalit Bhatia Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And anr
27 May, 2005
Allahabad High Court
JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J

..Complaint has been filed only with a view to cause harassment to the husband and his family members… continuation of the proceedings on the basis of complaint impugned in this application, is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed

….. filing of the complaint is only a result to the threat extended earlier regarding which, information was given to the police by the mother-in-law Smt. Kanta Bhatia (applicant No. 3) on 1.9.1997. It has also been argued that prior to the lodging of the complaint, the divorce petition was instituted on the ground of cruelty on 31.3.1998 i.e. 2 1/2 months before the criminal complaint was filed. …..

.Pritam Dass, opposite party No. 2 was examined as PW-2 in the divorce petition and he has admitted that at no point of time any dowry was demanded directly from him, he came to know about it only through his daughter Smt. Mamta Rani. He has further admitted in his statement that there was no demand of dowry either at the time of wedding or before the wedding whatever gifts were given in the marriage, was the sweet will of the family members of the bride. The divorce petition, which was instituted by the wife Smt. Mamta Rani, was dismissed holding that in fact she was never subjected to any cruelty, on the contrary, the husband was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the wife and in the circumstances, the divorce petition was dismissed….

…I have gone through the entire records as well as supplementary affidavit and I feel that this is one of those cases in which the complaint has been filed only with a view to cause harassment to the husband and his family members. In fact it is gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. which certainly pricks the judicial conscience and can not be left to stand. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by counsel for the applicants that the continuation of the proceedings on the basis of complaint impugned in this application, is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers. I therefore, come to a conclusion that the complaint instituted by the opposite party No. 2 is frivolous one and is quashed….

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/complaint-filed-only-with-to-cause-harassment-to-husband-his-family-it-is-gross-misuse-of-498a/


Vinod Rajkrishan Kaushik & ors. … Vs  The State of Maharashtra. …
July 25, 2014
Bombay High Court
CORAM : Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav,J

“….The highhandedness and influence of the complainant party was writ large on the face of the record and the police had detained the Petitioner No. 3 in custody without verification of the facts.….”

“… 18 ) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar & anr. has observed that” There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. ….”

“…….. 19 ) In the present case, it is a matter of record that the Petitioner No. 3 had to undergo incarceration for a week because of the fact that he was arrested unaware. The Petitioner No. 3 was arrested on 26th September, 2008 and was released on bail on 1/10/2008. The Petitioner No. 3 was exposed to social obloquy at the place of service since he was arrested in the office i.e. in the TCS office and was handcuffed. All this would clearly show that the complainant was seeking personal vendetta without there being any sufficient grounds…..”

…..23 ) On perusal of the facts of the case and observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Petition seeking discharge deserves to be allowed…..

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/bom-hc-blasts-disgruntled-wife-misuing-498a-relief-to-498a-hubbyfamily-husb-arrstd-handcuffed-office/


Arnesh Kumar….. Versus State Of Bihar & Anr…..
July 2, 2014
Supreme Court Of India
Judgment: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

“…..The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested……”

“…. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption…..”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/498-a-used-as-weapon-rather-than-shield-by-disgruntld-wives-supreme-court-also-no-auto-arrest-in-498a-cases/


Pashaura Singh Vs State of Punjab. Supreme court of India.
November 13, 2009.
Supreme Court Of India
JUDGEMENT : R.M. Lodha, J.

FIR manifestly malafide & with ulterior motive. Prosecution not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted & abuse of process. Supreme court

The Honourable Supreme court comes down heavily on a false and malafide 498a filed at the instance of an Canadian Indian woman and her family. The Hon court says “…….The FIR lodged by Balwant Singh (…wife’s brother..) is manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with ulterior motive. The prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The appellant (…husband..) has made out a case for quashing the first information report and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto….”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/fir-manifestly-malafide-with-ulterior-motive-prosecution-not-at-all-legitimate-rather-it-is-frivolous-vexatious-unwarranted-abuse-of-process-supreme-court/


Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State of Jharkhand.
August 13, 2010
Supreme Court of India
JUDGMENT : Dalveer Bhandari, J.

In this classic case Sister in Law and brother in Law (of the complainant woman) who have never stayed with the couple are included in the 498a complaint. They run for quash. The Hon Supreme court studies the case in detail and express pain and anguish about the #Legal_Terrorism, and #false498a unleashed in the country. The Hon Supreme court suggests to #Amend498a in the larger interest of society! …and this is in 2010!

Quoting the Hon Apex court :
“…30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. …”
xxxx
“…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….”
xxxx
“….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……”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/preeti-gupta-another-vs-state-of-jharkhand-supreme-court-recommends-necessary-changes-in-498a-in-the-larger-interest-of-society-to-avoid-misuse/


Ajay Ashok Khedkar V/s Sou. Laleeta Ajay Khedkar.
12 April 2010
High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
ORAL JUDGMENT : Per Deshpande, J.

Wife files false 498a against husband and ALSO ropes in others as a counter blast to husband’s divorce petition. Both Judicial Magistrate and High court come down heavily upon the wife’s attempt

“…..The Judicial Magistrate has recorded categoric finding that the complainant’s own testimony falsifies the prosecution case that the complainant was treated cruely and was harassed by the accused persons with a view to coerce her and her parents to meet their unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/­. The Magistrate has totally disbelieved the version of the complainant/wife and has acquitted the accused persons. On a careful reading of the judgment rendered in the case of prosecution under section 498A of IPC one thing is crystal clear and it can be safely assumed that the wife had filed a false case not only against her husband and mother­in­law but had unnecessarily roped in other near relations. It is obvious that on account of arrest and detention of the husband and his family members respondent has treated the appellant with utmost mental cruelty and the appellant has suffered agony. It will not be out of place to mention that the complaint filed by the wife was calculatedly designed in as much as it was a sort of counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the husband. The appellant had filed divorce petition on 16.6.03 whereas the complaint was lodged by the respondent­wife on 11.7.03…..”

Thus the wife wastes 10 years of the husband’s life with her false and frivolous case

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/filing-false-498a-arresting-family-members-is-cruelty-divorce-granted-bombay-hc/


Ramesh and others Vs State of Tamil Nadu .
03rd March 2005
Supreme Court of India.
BENCH: P. Venkatarama Reddi & A.K. Mathur

Wife makes bald statements against a sister in law who is staying separately from the couple. 498a is filed against that sister in law (in addition to the husband and others!) the sister in law is forced to run up to the Supreme court and get the case quashed

Quoting the Honourable Apex court : “…Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed….”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/6581/


M.P. No.1 of 2008 in Crl.O.P. No.10896 of 2008
04.08.2008
High Court Of Judicature At Madras
CORAM : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.Regupathi

Madras HC in 2008: “Apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations”

“…It must also be borne in mind that the object behind the enactment of Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act is to check and curb the menace of dowry and at the same time, to save the matrimonial homes from destruction. Our experience shows that, apart from the husband, all family members are implicated and dragged to the police stations. Though arrest of those persons is not at all necessary, in a number of cases, such harassment is made simply to satisfy the ego and anger of the complainant. …”

The Honourable court issues detailed directions to the Police on how to conduct inquiry and steps to be taken before arrest and goes on to say “…Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations. If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing…”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/6584/


Binay Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Others
13-05-2015
High Court Of Judicature At Patna
CORAM: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh

Sister in law roped into 498a case without specific allegations or proof. Patna HC quashes case & talks of misuse of 498a

Quoting the Honourable court:
“9. …….Though the contents of the complaint made out a prima facie case against the husband of the complainant and some other family member, but if evidence collected in course of enquiry is appreciated and scrutinized in its entirety, it would appear that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, who is unmarried sister of the husband of the complainant except casual reference of her name at some places. In any view, in a matrimonial dispute, without allegation of any active involvement in the matter, it would not be proper to put the petitioner on trial. In course of argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that presently the petitioner is married and is residing at her matrimonial home. In my view, allowing the prosecution to continue against her, would be counterproductive and it may even ruin her matrimonial life….”
xxx
12. Misuse of section 498A of I.P.C. in may cases has been judicially noticed by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts. It has been highlighted in those judgments that keeping in view the social objective behind the section, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that the complaints filed with false or exaggerated allegations out of ulterior motives or in a fit of emotion should be curbed .
13. Recently, the Apex Court equated misuse of the section to “legal terrorism” and said it was being treated as a “weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives.
xxx
16. When I look to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the background of legal principles set out by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the petitioner in the interest of justice. ..”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/sister-in-law-roped-into-498a-case-without-specific-allegations-or-proof-patna-hc-quashes-case-talks-of-misuse-of-498a/


Amrit Anand @ Chhotu, Versus The State of Bihar
14-01-2015
High Court Of Judicature At Patna
CORAM: Honourable The Chief Justice

Gross misuse of 498A. 6th Additional Sessions Judge so insensitive & did not even mention justification keeping petitioner in prison! Bail allowed!

…..This is an instance of gross misuse of the provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously by taking note of the weakness of the allegation against the petitioner, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail. That, however, was recalled only on the ground that counselling between the petitioner and his wife failed. The learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge was so insensitive that he did not even mention the justification for keeping the petitioner in prison and has just put the seal of approval on the cancellation of bond and putting the petitioner behind the bar.

Hence, this application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each ……

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/gross-misuse-of-498a-6th-addl-sessn-judge-insensitive-not-even-mention-justification-2-keep-petitioner-in-prison-bail-allowed/


Amit Sharma… Vs State & Ors
August 06, 2010
High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi
JUSTICE Shiv Narayan Dhingra

Registration of false FIRs profitable business 4 police officials!! Justice DHINGRA ji tears false 498a to shreds!

Hon Shri Dhingra “…I consider that registration of this FIR is a sordid story of working culture of Delhi police. It is this police which refuses to regi ster FIR s in case of robberies, thefts and other heinous offences which take place on the roads of Delhi and when the complainant dare comes to police station for registration of FIR, he is made to run from one police station to another on th e issue of ju risdiction itself, while the FIRs are registered when nothing happened in India and no investigation can be done by the police in India. Why such FIRs are registered is obvious. It seems registration of FIRs has been made a profitable business by some police officials. The police, in the present case, not only registered the FIR but also got lookout circulars for the petitioners issued…..”

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/registration-of-false-firs-profitable-business-4-police-officials-justice-dhingra-tears-false-498a-to-shreds/


Perugu Varalakshmi vs State And Ors.
17 December, 2002
Andhra High Court
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

Facts & circumstances clearly indicate case is to wreak vengeance & is a gross misuse of 498A IPC.

  • In this case a woman who is already divorced from her husband and who is living away from her husband files a 498a using her own uncle and her son as witnesses !! The Modus Operandi is simple. She files a MC case, and on the day husband comes to attend the MC case she claims the husband demanded Dowry !! (even though it is after divorce)
  • The AP High court clearly goes thru the evidence, appreciates the serious anomalies in the evidence and lets the lower court verdict of acquittal stand
  • The Hon court also clarifies that this case is GROSS misuse of 498a IPA
  • Quoting the Honourable court :
    “…..15. The various facts and circumstances would clearly indicate that the complaint submitted by P.W. 1 was nothing but a step to wreak vengeance against the accused and the whole case presents an instance of gross misuse of provisions of Section 498A of IPC.
    16. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence on record in proper perspective and had arrived at a just and proper conclusion, I do not see any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Crl.R.C. and the Crl. Appeal are accordingly dismissed……..”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1Im


SRINIVAS RAO …Vs D.A. DEEPA
Feb 22, 2013
Supreme Court Of India
JUDGMENT : (Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

False 498a, alleging “forced to sleep with father in law” etc are cruelty. Divorce granted @ Supreme court. Wife need not stay long for cruelly. Clear case of 498a misuse

Marriage solemnised in 1999. Fight starts immediately after marriage and wife leaves for parental house JUST 1 day after marriage. She promptly files a false dowry case saying husband and co sought 10 lakhs dowry and also alleges that her mother in law asked her to sleep with father in law. After initial compromise on the false dowry case, police make a closure report, but ablaa naari goes to court and gets the dowry case numbered !! Meanwhile husband files for divorce and wife wants restitution!  Yeah, she wants restitution! Husband is granted divorce by family court. Wife goes on appeal to HC (against family court decree). In the meanwhile husband looses 498a at magistrate court and immediately wife writes to husband’s office (i.e.) AP High court to remove him from his job! Husband wins appeal on 498a case at Sessions court and wife goes on appeal before AP HC which is not yet finished!

In the meanwhile Hon. AP High court allows wife’s appeal to Husband’s divorce decree and grants her restitution! Hon AP HC states wife could NOT have committed cruelty because she stayed at husband’s house only for a day!

Husband goes on appeal to Supreme court on the divorce decree. Hon Supreme court appreciates the entire case and decrees (a) marriage broken down as parties have been completely living apart (b) various cases filed by wife are cruelty (c) wife NEED NOT have physically lived with husband to create cruelty and grants divorce to husband … Supreme court KINDLY provides the wife with Rs 15,00,000 !! as permanent alimony !!

http://wp.me/p7s7-1Iw


Smt.Sunita Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
21.2.2012
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh
CORAM:       Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar

Reckless Malafile FIR falsely implicating in-laws vexatiously & maliciously to blackmail & grab property

Ablaa wife files FIR on In laws including brother – in law (Devar), but NO FIR on her own HUSBAND. She hides facts. The honourable High court concludes that “…if the crux of the allegations leveled against the petitioners as discussed hereinabove, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners vexatiously and maliciously, to put pressure and to blackmail them, to grab the property, in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide against them. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others…”

The court goes on to say “… As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the wives of involving and roping in all the relations of her in-laws in the matter of demand of dowry have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting social fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch to decide such criminal prosecution. This tendency needs to be curbed and if not discouraged, it is likely to affect and weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in future in this relevant direction….”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1IM


Dr.Anita Rani Vs Dr.Suresh Kumar
26.2.2015
High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh
CORAM:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sneh Prashar.
Order : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal

Filing false criminal cases, getting husband arrested, neglecting household, ill treating husband etc are cruelty against husband. Divorce granted to husband. HC affirms lower court decree.

  • Wife leaves matri home on many occasions
  • Wife breaks mangalsutra throws it on ground during quarrel
  • Wife has written letters to husband’s employer urging them to take action against husband
  • Wife files false 406, 498a case wherein the husband was arrested but the final outcome resulted in acquittal of husband and other accused by the trial court vide judgment dated 23.2.2013
  • The Husband argues that “…acts of the appellant (wife in this appeal) in insisting upon the department to initiate action against the respondent and also to prosecute him for demand of dowry show that the marriage had irretrievably been broken and such acts of the appellant amount to cruelty and were sufficient to dissolve marriage between the parties…”
  • The Hon HC summarieses that “……The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the acquittal of the husband and his family members of matrimonial offences under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code would be sufficient to hold that it has caused mental cruelty to the husband so as to entitle him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act….”
    *& Hon HC concludes “… Thus, the irresistible conclusion would be that the appellant-wife had treated the husband-respondent with cruelty….” and “…..Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to demonstrate that there was any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs….”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1IE


Sanjiv Kumar  Vs State of Haryana and another
21.05.2012
High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh
CORAM:         Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar.

Vexatious &malicious FIR on inlaws, to wreak vengeance. Disowned love mariage DIL files false 498a 406 on family

  • One of the sons marry a girl outside the caste without consent of the family “…….. inter-caste love marriage of Manoj Kumar Saini, younger brother of petitioner Sanjiv Kumar, was solemnized with complainant-Anju Saini, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) on 06.07.2002 in Arya Samaj Mandir at Hisar, without the consent of family members…”
  • The Dad is furious about this intercaste marriage and “… When the father of Manoj Kumar Saini came to know that he is going to perform love marriage with the complainant, then he disowned him(Manoj Kumar) and got published the following public …”
  • The Dad is so shocked that “… he actually suffered serious ailments and ultimately, died due to the attitude of his son Manoj Kumar Saini…”
  • So the marriage completely cuts off this son, and they start living separately from the family !!
  • Living away from the family does NOT save the parents from false cases !! Six years later, the wife (yeah .. the same love marriage wife) files a 409a, 406 case “….six years after solemnization of marriage, the complainant lodged a complaint against petitioner- Sanjiv Kumar, brother-in-law(Jeth), his wife Suman, sister-in-law(Jethani) and Rani, mother-in-law, inter alia, with the allegations that they started pressurizing her, to bring more money from her parents. They did not give any share out of property and demanded Rs.2-3 lacs…”
  • And the Honourable court concludes “….if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as discussed hereinabove, is put together and is perused, then, to my mind, no pointed offences are made out against the petitioner and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously filed the FIR(Annexure P-5) against him, in order to wreak vengeance. In case, the complainant is permitted to prosecute her brother-in-law(Jeth), who is residing separately, then it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to him. In this manner, the complainant appears to have falsely involved the petitioner in the present case…”

Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-1IQ


How Petty quarrels become criminal cases clogging courts and eating precious time and taxpayer money

Bipat Mistry Vs State Of Bihar
12.08.2010
High Court Of Judicature At Patna
Mandhata Singh, J

“…Rs. 10,000/- was demanded by the petitioner from informant’s son that was opposed by the informant which resulted in an incident of assault ..” !!
“…No case under Section 498A is made out even after accepting the allegation …”
“…This case is an example that how the provision under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is misused….”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ja


Gaurav Babulal Thakor & 4   Vs   State Of Gujarat & Anr
19/06/2015
High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
CORAM: Honourable Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria

Husband wife apart since 2010. 498a in 2014. DV filed after 498a stay. Abuse of process says HC

“…..husband and wife have been staying separately since 2010. A complaint under Section 498A was filed by the wife in April 2014. ….”

“…This Court has stayed the proceedings pursuant to the said complaint by order dated 08.01.2015. The complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed thereafter…”

“…..5. From the above uncontroverted facts, a prima facie case is made out showing abuse of process in initiating the domestic violence proceedings. Therefore, RULE, returnable on 30th July, 2015. Till the next date, there shall be no further proceedings before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of Criminal Case No. 85 of 2014….”

Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-2k0


Husband arrested and Jailed for one and half years. The Hon HC is shocked !!.

Md. Quasim @ Md. Kashim @ Md. Quasim Ansari Vs The State of Bihar
16-01-2015
High Court Of Judicature At Patna
CORAM: Honourable The Chief Justice

Granting Bail, the Hon HC says “…This case indeed discloses the extent to which the provision of Section 498A, IPC has been misused and as to how the legal system was unkind to the petitioner…..” “..For the past and one and-a-half years the petitioner is in prison. Even if he is held to be guilty of the offence alleged against him, the sentence cannot be that much….”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1Jd


Misuse of 498a has become SO very rampant that completely un-related people are roped into 498a and they have to run up to the HC to get bail !!

BHIKHARI SINGH son of late Methur Singh and Anr Vs The State Of Bihar
3.3.2010
High Court Of Judicature At Patna
Order : Mandhata Singh, J.

Unrelated villagers roped into 498a. Lower court NOT vigilant, Patna HC orders bail, decries misuse !

In this case, quoting the Hon HC “…None can be allowed to misuse the privilege under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as a weapon which is to defend a helpless lady. It appears that court’s are not vigilant to prevent this abuse by way of taking cognizance for false prosecution. Petitioners are villagers not relatives of the husband…”

http://wp.me/p7s7-1Jl


Story of physical assault manifestly forged & fabricated to impute jurisdiction. 498a quashed Allahabad HC

 

Anil Sharma son of late Jeevan Lal Sharma, and 10 others  Vs. State of U.P., Smt. Mamta Sharma & another
Allahabad HC
Cr Misc. App 1240 of 1999, dt. 06.04.2007

  • Story of physical assault manifestly forged & fabricated to impute jurisdiction. 498a quashed Allahabad HC
  • There is also on record copy of certificate of railway authority that applicant no.1 husband was on duty on the day when aforesaid occurrence is said to have taken place at the house of wife at Agra !!
  • Introduction of 10 other persons besides husband in the first information report, is itself indicative of an intention on part of the wife, to exert pressure on husband, with a view to subjugate him.
  • It becomes, therefore, clear that wife has no qualms in implicating innocent persons and introducing false episode.
  • In the result, petition is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 17 of 1998 under Sections 498-A,224 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra are terminated.

Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-HD


Madras HC quashes #FALSE498a in Feb’16 & talks of 498a misuse! Quotes earlier SC cases on #498amisuse

1.      Kaleel Ahamed Sahib  2.      Basaria Begum
3.      Mariyam Kani 4.      Syed Mohammed            … Petitioners/A1 to A4
-vs-
1.      The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,  Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.6 of 2013)            …1st respondent/complainant
2.     Thameema                … 2nd respondent/Defacto complainant

A woman files a fake 498a case. During police panchayat she agrees to live separately with her husband IF a separate household is established. She also states that all her Jewellery is with her parents. Later the couple start living together and again trouble crop up. She changes her stand and files yet another fake dowry case. The second case is inquired into and in the inquiry report dated 01.04.2013 by the District Social Welfare Officer clearly states that the dispute is purely a matrimonial dispute and there is no material to infer that the accused had demanded dowry. However police file final report on many accused who move to the HC for quash.

Honble HC quashes the case and also clearly decries the misuse of 498a !! The Honble HC quotes both Sushil Kumar and Arnesh Kumar case (SC cases !! )

Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-2sx


498a on 13 people of husband’s family after divorce & recovery of dower. Accused wait 7 years 4 justice !

Jarkhand HC quash where HC clearly states that

case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners

After accepting dower amount & getting back all utensils as demanded, wife files a complaint case, with Dowry etc allegation of period prior to filing of petition for recovery of dower !! She does so on 13 people including the husband and his family members !! The lower (magistrate) court also takes cognizance !!

So husband and party approach the HC. The Honourable HC concludes “… I find from the materials available on record that this complaint case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners after recovery of the Dower amount and articles through a competent court….” and “the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 1397 of 2008 are, hereby, quashed..” !!

This is the sad fate in India where Cognizance is taken by lower courts, and a false 498a case, that too on 13 people of husband’s family and they are made to run around for approx 7 years to get justice !! (2009 to 2016 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 336 of 2009

1.Md. Sayeed Anwar son of Hamid Ansari @ Abdul Hamid Ansari
2. Aziz Ansari s/o late Majid Ansari
3. Hamid @ Abdul Hamid Ansari s/o Majid Ansari
4. Munni @ Munni Khatoon w/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
5. Sajid @ Sajid Anwar @ Babu s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
6. Zakir Hussain @ Zakir Anwar @ Lala s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
7. Rayees Ansari @ Rayesh Anwar s/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
8. Ruby Naaz@ Rubi Naz d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
9. Guria Praveen @ Guria d/o Abdul Hamid Ansari
10. Soni w/o Imtiyaz Ansari
11. Ashraf Ansari s/o Samsul Ansari
12. Md. Imtiyaz Ansari s/o Khalil Ansari
13. Anjum Ara @ Anjum w/o Ashraf Ansari, all r/o village Chatabad, Bhandaridih
P.S Katras Dist. Dhanbad .……………… Petitioners

Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Hamida Khatoon @ Guriya Arshi d/o Md. Jasim Ansari and w/o Md. Sayeed
Anwar r/o village Rahmatganj, Pandarpala, P.S Bankmore (Bhuli O.P.) Dist.
Dhanbad ………………. Opp. Parties

Link : http://wp.me/p7s7-2yZ


Two marriages, two deaths and one false 498A case !!

Woman marries second time after death of her first husband. It’s averred that her second marriage was not even know to the relatives of the first husband unroll late stage !! However this woman commits suicide a few months after the second marriage. Her father files 498 a case against brother of the first husband !!! Court Finds this an abuse of the process of law in quashes the case !!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 307/2008
Date of Decision: 26.05.2011
ONKAR NATH TIWARI….. Petitioner
versus
STATE ….. Respondent

Link : https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/two-marriages-two-deaths-and-one-false-498a-case/

complaint filed only to cause harassment to husband & his family. it is gross misuse of 498A

Allahabad High Court
Lalit Bhatia Son Of Sri J.N. … vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Sri … on 27 May, 2005
Author: P Srivastava
Bench: P Srivastava
JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.

  1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava and Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Advocates, for the contesting opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.
  2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed invoking inherent powers for quashing the complaint case No. 27 of 2000-Pritam Dass v. Lalit Bhatia and Ors., pending before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh.

  3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that Lalit Bhatia, applicant No. 1 was married with Smt. Mamta Rani, daughter of opposite party No. 2 on 17.5.1989 according to Hindu Rites. The wife came to her marital house and has performed all her marital obligations. One son Karan Bhatia was born in the year 1991 from the wedlock of applicant No. 1 and Smt. Mamta Rani. Till 31.8.1997 the husband and wife lived happily with a son born out from their wedlock. The applicant Lalit Bhatia was running a factory of Cosmetics at Delhi which was dang good business till the year 1995 but thereafter the factory suffered huge loss, as a consequence, the business was shut down. At this point of time on account of interference by parents and other family members, relations between Smt. Mamta Rani and applicant No. 1 became sour and she left her matrimonial house on 27.8.1997 Thereafter it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that continuous efforts were made on the part of the applicants to bring back Smt. Mamta Rani to her marital home. On one or two occasions she did come back but just for a short period and thereafter she left her in-laws house on one pretext or the other. The other side of the story is that after closer of the factory, the in-laws started making demand for dowry i.e. after 8 years of marriage and since the complainant was unable to fulfill the demand of Rs. one lac, it led to the institution of the criminal proceedings. The applicants had already given an information to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarswati Vihar, Delhi on 1.9.1997 informing threats extended to the applicants by father i.e. opposite party No. 2 and his daughter Smt. Mamta Rani that they will ensure that the entire family members are implicated in criminal cases. This information is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. A notice sent by Smt. Mamta Rani to the applicant No. 1 was received on 18.1.1998 and he was called upon to take her back otherwise necessary consequences will ensue. Proceedings for divorce was initiated on 31.3.1998 and divorce petition No. 257 of 1998 was instituted in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A copy of the divorce petition has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit, to demonstrate that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against all the family members of the applicants to make out a ground for divorce. Finally, the instant criminal complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 5.5.1998, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. The Statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, which are also part of the record as Annexures-4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to the affidavit. Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh summoned the applicants under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 4.7.1998. The applicants appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and filed a review petition for reviewing the summoning order, which was also rejected. So far the order dated 7.4.2000 is concerned, there is no illegality in the said order, since the Criminal Procedure Code do not contemplate any power to review the summoning order. In the present application, I am only concerned with the original summoning order dated 4.7.1998 and also the prayer for quashing of the complaint. An application for maintenance was also moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Mamta Rani which was dismissed in default. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting opposite party denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this application. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Subsequently a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a view to bring on record the original summoning order, which could not be annexed with the application and also the final judgment and decree dated 23.3,2002 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh in Matrimonial Petition No. 257 of 1998. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the complaint filed under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is only a frivolous complaint with a view to cause harassment to the applicants and though it has been stated in the complaint that the wife was beaten by in-laws, there is no injury report on record as no injuries were examined, which goes to show falsity of the entire allegations. It has also been argued that the filing of the complaint is only a result to the threat extended earlier regarding which, information was given to the police by the mother-in-law Smt. Kanta Bhatia (applicant No. 3) on 1.9.1997. It has also been argued that prior to the lodging of the complaint, the divorce petition was instituted on the ground of cruelty on 31.3.1998 i.e. 2 1/2 months before the criminal complaint was filed. Counsel for the applicants has also placed the findings recorded by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh in his judgment dated 23.3.2002 in the divorce petition. The part of the judgment, on which emphasis has been laid by counsel for the applicants, is that the complainant Pritam Dass, opposite party No. 2 was examined as PW-2 in the divorce petition and he has admitted that at no point of time any dowry was demanded directly from him, he came to know about it only through his daughter Smt. Mamta Rani. He has further admitted in his statement that there was no demand of dowry either at the time of wedding or before the wedding whatever gifts were given in the marriage, was the sweet will of the family members of the bride. The divorce petition, which was instituted by the wife Smt. Mamta Rani, was dismissed holding that in fact she was never subjected to any cruelty, on the contrary, the husband was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the wife and in the circumstances, the divorce petition was dismissed/Notices were issued in this application to the opposite party No. 2 and an interim order was granted. The applicants were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per month through a bank draft to Smt. Mamta Rani. Nothing has come in the counter affidavit that the payment in pursuance to the order dated 8.1.2003 is not being made. It is, therefore, presumed that since the interim order is continuing, the condition imposed is being complied with till date.

  4. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties, I proceed to examine whether the complaint filed against the applicants can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers or not. The object of introducing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent a woman from being tortured or harassed by her husband or by her relatives with a view to extract dowry but at the same time it is relevant to examine that what is the meaning of cruelty against a married woman by the husband or his relatives to attract the offence and bring the family members and the husband within the purview of Section 498A and the consequent punishment. In the case of Sarla Prabhakar Vaghmare v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Criminal Law Journal, 407, it has been held that in any event, the willful act or conduct ought to be a proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498A I.P.C., an event some times back can not be termed to be a factum, taken note in the matter of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Legislative intend is clear enough to indicate any particular reference to Explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of act in order to be harassment within the meaning of the said Explanation. In the present case, the complaint has been lodged on 5.5.1998 but in paragraph 3 of the complaint without mentioning any date, the allegation of dowry has been levelled against the applicants. In paragraph 6 again the allegation is that on 24.4.1998, the applicants came to his house and made demand of Rs. one lac from his family members. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the threat and demand was extended to him on the date when the family members have visited his house to take back their daughter-in-law. The same allegations have been repeated in the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but there is no injury report on record Besides the fact, the allegation in the divorce petition, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit, spells out an entire different story. The judgment, which has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit in the divorce petition contains the evidence of the complainant, which was examined as PW-2 in the divorce proceeding. The denial before the divorce court was given on oath and court has come to a conclusion that there was no demand of dowry and wife was never subjected to any kind of harassment for demand of dowry. In view of the various categories laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhutan Lal 1991 (28) A.C.C., 111 (S.C.), the Apex Court has held that in the event, on the basis of admitted documents available on record, if the court prima facie comes to a conclusion that there are no chances of conviction, first information report, charge sheet or complaint as the case may be, can be quashed. In the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C. page 866. the Apex Court had carved out three specific categories where the criminal proceedings could be quashed. The three categories are enumerated below:-

(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report of the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.

(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

  1. The facts and the evidence in the instant case is clearly covered under the third category’. There is no question of any enquiry or recording any evidence on the face of clear admission of the complaint in the divorce case.

  2. I have gone through the entire records as well as supplementary affidavit and I feel that this is one of those cases in which the complaint has been filed only with a view to cause harassment to the husband and his family members. In fact it is gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C. which certainly pricks the judicial conscience and can not be left to stand. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by counsel for the applicants that the continuation of the proceedings on the basis of complaint impugned in this application, is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers. I therefore, come to a conclusion that the complaint instituted by the opposite party No. 2 is frivolous one and is quashed The interim order directing for payment of Rs. 2000/- to Smt. Mamta Rani by the applicants is also discharged. The application is accordingly, allowed.

Don’t File Fake Rape, Try Fake Dowry Instead !!!

* Women are advised NOT to file fake rape cases..

* There are MANY disadvantages in filing fake rape

* Take for example, Cops and judges do NOT like fake rape, and fake rape artists will be jailed as in this case posted below .Gummit, cops etc dislike fake rape because that spoils the name of “law and order” i.e. it spoils their name in society !! Opposition parties use this to attack the ruling party

* Also why run around with fake rape when there are much better means ?

* Indian Women can continue to marry gullible men and then file fake dowry cases against husbands and mothers in law.

* There the rewards are generally quite good, Also in case of Fake dowry cases, gummint will make some noses by NEVER ARREST fake dowry wife or fake father in law (accomplice)

Screenshot - 15_06_2015 , 18_18_31

Posted under category : Satire !

Is everyone telling you to RUN and quash the case ? you think it’s easy ? read this post again !

When one is hit with 498a initial reactions are a mixture of “why me”, “It can’t happen to me … there is something wrong her..” , “I’m honest so I’ll be declared innocent, not guilty in three months (or say very soon ) , etc.. etc…

Slowly the mood changes to anger, anxiety etc

At this point some people think they can run to the High court and quash the case

they must have read something somewhere and will assume a quash is easy piecy

A quash isn’t easy IF you haven’t planned well and in many cases it isn’t easy EVEN If you have planned a lot

Many a time a Quash is a risky proposition

some times it is a pure gamble … its just expecting you can convince the judge and get a quash

Read this case for details