Rude, uncultured behavior & perfunctory abuses are mundane matters. Not attract 498A GujHC

In this case a woman married to a London based NRI files, returns back from London and files 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC & Sec 3, 7 of DP act, almost 3 years after alleged incidents. She claims Mother in law abused her and in laws did NOT turn up to take her back to her matrimonial home !!

the Hon gujarat HC appreciates the facts and decrees “….Rude and uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section 498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract Section 498A of the IPC. …”

The Hon HC quashes the case against IN LAWS !!

* Marriage on 8th December 2009
* In 2010, wife joined husband at London and stayed there for two years.
* Since she was taken ill, she returned to India in May 2012
* In 2015, (approx 3 years later) she filed FIR # II-CR No.12 of 2015 @ Petlad (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, u.s 498A, 323, 504 with Sec 114 of IPC & Sec 3 and 7 of DP Act
* Hence this quash. In this quash, The applicant no.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law and the applicant no.4 is the married sister-in-law.

The Hon HC observes “….Rude and uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section 498A of the IPC…..They may be morally guilty of not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC…” and quashes the case

*****************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION

(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 4899 of 2015

**********************************************************
HARESH LALSINGH GADHAVI & 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR.SANAT B PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI for HL PATEL ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Patel, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1. Ms.Pancholi, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused nos.2, 3 and 4 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the FIR bearing II-CR No.12 of 2015 lodged with the Petlad (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case of the prosecution is that the applicants herein treated the first informant cruelly and thereby they have committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

On 8th December 2009, the marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant no.1. I may clarify at this stage that this application has not been pressed so far as the applicant no.1 – husband is concerned.

The applicant no.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant no.3 is the mother-in-law and the applicant no.4 is the married sister-in-law. Within thirty days from the date of the marriage, the husband left for London. While the husband was at London, the first informant stayed back at her matrimonial home. It also appears that some time in the year 2010, the first informant joined her husband at London and stayed there for two years. Since she was taken ill, she returned to India in May 2012. It is her case that she waited for her in-laws to take her back to her matrimonial home but none turned up. It is her case that although she was ill, yet none came to inquire about her. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

It has been vehemently submitted by Ms.Pancholi, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant that the mother-in-law used to treat the first informant cruelly by hurling abuses. There were constant altercations with regard to the household work.

It appears that after almost a period of three years the first informant thought fit to lodge the FIR. Rude and uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section 498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract Section 498A of the IPC. Even if I accept the entire case of the prosecution, there is nothing against the father-in-law and the married sister-in-law. Whatever little has been alleged is against the mother-in-law, and that too, hurling of abuses, using of perfunctory words, etc. They may be morally guilty of not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

In view of the above, this application is allowed. The First Information Report bearing No.II-CR No.12 of 2015 lodged with the Petlad (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law are concerned. The case shall proceed further in accordance with law so far as the husband is concerned. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s