Category Archives: 498A and 406

498a wife cries of police inaction when husband & family get AB ! Cal HC tells her to go …p !!

An abla nAri, embodiment of low, epitome of culture, bearer of values, a.k.a. Indian wife files a S498A/323/354/406 IPC & S 3/4 DP act cocktail on multiple accused in husband’s family on 14th Feb 2016 … They all run around courts and get anticipatory bail ! Now wife is crying of POLICE inaction because she can’t see husband behind …… ! She goes crying to HC. Hon Calcutta HC tells her to go ….p !!

==============================

11.03.2016

W. P. 3625 ( W) of 2016

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Nilanjan Rudra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Aniruddha Sarkar Mr. Goutam Dey Mr. Soumyojyoti Nandy Ms. Tandra Dutta …….For the petitioner

Mr. Sanatan Panja …….For the State

The allegation of ‘police inaction’ levelled by the petitioner is countered by the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station by furnishing instructions to Panja, learned advocate for the State.

It appears from the instructions placed before this Bench that on the petitioner’s complaint, Dum Dum PS F.I.R. No. 130/16 dated 14th February, 2016 under Sections 498A/323/354/406, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered; four witnesses have been examined and a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued to the petitioner to contact ASI Shib Sankar Banerjee of the said police station, the investigating officer in this case, for recovery of stridhan articles. It also appears that notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued to the accused persons for their appearance before the investigating officer on 14th February, 2016; however, fearing arrest the accused approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore prayer for bail and have since been enlarged on bail.

In view of the above, the allegation of ‘police inaction’ is not well substantiated. The petitioner shall be at liberty to contact ASI Shib Sankar Banerjee for the purpose of recovery of stridhan articles. The said investigating officer shall proceed to conduct and complete investigation in accordance with law and file appropriate police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the relevant magistrate at an early date. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The writ petition stands disposed of, without costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

( Dipankar Datta, 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


Court orders IT dept. 2 to report how wife & co could spend 40 Lakhs on marriage. Classic P&H HC bail !

A husband harassed with 406 & 498 cocktail approaches the Hon for AB

during the course of the hearing, the court notices that the wife seems to have made fake and exaggerated claims on dowry items and marriage expenses (to the extent of 40 lakhs !!).

The Hon HC notices these exagerated claims and orders investigation into the wife’s family finances and their source of funds . “….During the course of arguments, this Court asked the complainant side to explain where from 40,00,000/- were acquired by the complainant and her parents so as to spend such a huge amount in the marriage, but they could not give any satisfactory answer and to arrive at a correct conclusion, this Court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, to verify the said fact. The private parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar. The report has been received wherein it has been mentioned that the mother of the complainant has no means to spend beyond22,71,900/-……”

The Honourable court also reiterates that sections 406 & 498-A IPC, are not meant for recovery of dowry articles and grants anticipatory bail to husband !! “….9. So far as the recovery of dowry articles are concerned, the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for the said purpose. Reference can be made to Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, 1992 (3) CCR 2764, wherein Delhi High Court held that in a case under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, the anticipatory bail cannot be denied only on the ground that jewellery and the dowry articles were not recovered. It has further been held that the proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for the recovery of the jewellery and the dowry articles. The wife (complainant) if so chooses can move the Civil Court for the recovery of the said articles…..”

===========================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-29829-2012 (O&M)

Date of Decision: August 23, 2013

Prit Pal Singh   …Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another …Respondents

CORAM:       HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:     Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

  1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Prit Pal Singh, son of Gurjit Singh Walia, resident of G-77/A, Opposite Ansal Plaza Mall, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 47, dated 23.8.2012, registered at Police Station, Women Cell (now Police Station, Women), Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar.
  2. Learned counsel contends that vide order dated 25.9.2012, the investigating agency was directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner; the petitioner has joined the investigation several time and fully cooperated with the investigating agency; most of the alleged dowry articles have already been recovered from the house of the petitioner; and that it was a love marriage and the petitioner and the complainant- respondent No. 2 could not pull on well, therefore, just to put pressure on the petitioner and to grab his property, a false case has been registered against him. He further submits that even during the pendency of the application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, ad-interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner and he joined the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency. It has also been contended that the complainant has alleged that approximately `40,00,000/- were spent in the marriage, but the report sought by this Court from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-II, Jalandhar, belies the said fact. It has also been contended that the provisions contained in Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for recovery of the dowry articles etc.

  3. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Ravi Kumar of Police Station, Women, Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar, very fairly concedes that the petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required by the investigating agency. However, all the dowry articles as alleged by the complainant, have not been recovered and for that purpose further interrogation of the petitioner is required.

  4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 submits that the factum of the love marriage, as alleged by the petitioner, is belied from the compact discs which have been placed on record by her; the petitioner has not joined the investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency; the report received from the Commissioner of Income-tax is incomplete, wrong and perverse; except the husband, no other member of his family has been involved in this case; the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would prejudice the investigation; and that the previous investigating officer was colliding with the petitioner, therefore, the case could not be effectively investigated.

  5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

  6. The marriage of the petitioner with the complainant- respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 1.12.2009. According to the petitioner, it was a love marriage and with the consent of the parents of the petitioner and the complainant, it was performed at Jalandhar. The husband and wife could not pull on well and, hence, the matter was reported to the police, resulting into registration of the present case. The petitioner and the complainant-respondent No. 2 resided at Gurgaon after the marriage, where the petitioner was employed as a Software Engineer in some multinational company. After registration of the case, the petitioner made an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Court of Session and he was granted ad-interim bail. In compliance of the said order, he joined the investigation, but ultimately the said application was dismissed. Hence, he approached this Court.

  7. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner further joined the investigation and some of the dowry articles were recovered from him. It is the conceded position that in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985, no list of the gifts was prepared. During the course of arguments, this Court asked the complainant side to explain where from 40,00,000/- were acquired by the complainant and her parents so as to spend such a huge amount in the marriage, but they could not give any satisfactory answer and to arrive at a correct conclusion, this Court directed the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, to verify the said fact. The private parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar. The report has been received wherein it has been mentioned that the mother of the complainant has no means to spend beyond22,71,900/-.

  8. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner has joined the investigation and some of the dowry articles have been recovered, but few dowry articles as disclosed by the complainant side are yet to be recovered.

  9. So far as the recovery of dowry articles are concerned, the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for the said purpose. Reference can be made to Jagdish Thakkar v. State of Delhi, 1992 (3) CCR 2764, wherein Delhi High Court held that in a case under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, the anticipatory bail cannot be denied only on the ground that jewellery and the dowry articles were not recovered. It has further been held that the proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for the recovery of the jewellery and the dowry articles. The wife (complainant) if so chooses can move the Civil Court for the recovery of the said articles.

  10. In Uday Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 354, this Court held that the accused who had approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, had joined the investigation and certain articles of dowry were recovered, in that eventuality, anticipatory bail could not be refused on the ground that some articles were still to be recovered.

  11. In Anil Rajput and others v. State of Haryana, 2010 (6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1126, this Court also held that during pendency of the anticipatory bail petition in a matrimonial dispute case, the petitioner joined the investigation and in spite of the fact that recoveries were yet to be effected, would not dis-entitle the petitioner/accused to the concession of anticipatory bail.

  12. In Beant Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 381, this Court also held that where there is a claim and counter claim with regard to the dowry articles, in the said circumstances the concession of anticipatory bail should not be withheld.

  13. In Vishal Gulati v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-17915-2012, decided on 5.7.2012), this Court also expressed the view that the provision contained in Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, are not meant for recovery of the dowry articles.

  14. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 126, held that the arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arrest of the accused is imperative, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  15. No contrary view has been produced either by the learned counsel for the State or the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2.

16. Without discussing much on the merits of the case, but keeping in view the facts that the petitioner has joined the investigation and most of the dowry articles have already been recovered, as well as the ratio of the judgments cited herein above, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Prit Pal Singh, son of Gurjit Singh Walia, resident of G- 77/A, Opposite Ansal Plaza Mall, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, is allowed. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

  1. The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
August 23, 2013                                  JUDGE
Pkapoor

Kapoor Prashant
2013.08.31 13:56
I attest to the accuracy
of this order

PostGrad Techie wife from top IT firm takes ONLY 8 lakhs 2 quash 498a 406 & w/draw CrPC125. Fate of Indian men

Post Grad Techie wife from top firm takes ONLY 8 lakhs to quash 498a 406 & withdraw CrPC125. Fate of men in India.

How Indian men pay day in and day out. How Indian men are made to pay in courts, whether they are right or wrong. How a man who won divorce on grounds of cruelty still pays to quash 498a and withdraw Sec 125 case !!

This appeal arises from order dated 17.12.2014 in Case No.206/2011, by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur granting divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act pursuant to an application by respondent (in this case , i.e.) Husband, on grounds of cruelty.

Key notes

  • respondent is a B.Tech in Software employed in Tata Consultancy Services and has even been on deputation to the Office of his employer in Paris.
  • They were married on 16.02.2010 at the age of approximately 22 years. Today they are approximately 28 years of age.
  • Husband has won divorce on grounds of cruelty
  • Wife has filed 498a, 406 and is also holding the CrPC 125 gun
    ……. She takes ONLY 8 lakhs to quash the criminal cases !!! ……….

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.107/2015

Rashmi Sharma W/o Ashwini Sharma D/o Shri Mohan Lal
Sharma, By Caste Brahmin, Age about 27 years, Presently
residing at Baroda Mev, Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar
(Rajasthan). ….Appellant-Non-Applicant

Versus

Ashwini Sharma S/o Shri Hari Shankar Sharma, By Caste
Brahmin, age About 27 years, R/o House No.430A, Katewa
Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Tehsil & Distt. Jaipur. …Respondent-Applicant

DATE: 20.09.2016

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NAVIN SINHA
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Mr. Sudesh Bansal &
Mr. Aatish Jain, for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Chandel on behalf of
Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, for the respondent.


The present appeal arises from order dated 17.12.2014 in Case No.206/2011, by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur granting divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) pursuant to an application presented by the respondent on grounds of cruelty.

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the appellant is a Postgraduate and the respondent is a B.Tech in Software employed in Tata Consultancy Services and has even been on deputation to the Office of his employer in Paris. They were married on 16.02.2010 at the age of approximately 22 years. Today they are approximately 28 years of age. As adults they have realised their incompatibility of companionship with each other. They have therefore taken a matured decision as adults to part ways respectfully without rancour or ill-will against each other and for that reason the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal for reasons recorded hereinafter.

The respondent has agreed to pay and the appellant has agreed to accept a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight lacs) only in full and final settlement as one time permanent alimony to be paid to the appellant under Section 25 of the Act. This amount shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today by way of a Demand Draft in the name of the appellant. Since this undertaking has been given in course of this proceeding leading to a consent order, non-compliance of the undertaking may have its ramifications and consequences for the respondent. The appellant agrees that she has no other civil or financial claims against the respondent and shall not raise any such claims hereinafter.

Counsel for the appellant further submits that she undertakes not to pursue Criminal Case No.23/281/2011 registered pursuant to FIR No.72/2011, dated 15.04.2011, Police Station Baroda Mev, District Alwar, presently pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Alwar under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and she has no objection if it is quashed. Likewise the appellant further agrees to withdraw the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unconditionally bearing No.1073/2013 registered originally before the Family Court, Alwar, now transferred to the Court of the concerned A.D.J., Laxmangarh and in which no orders for payment of any kind has been passed till today. Counsel for the parties are further agreed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be treated as a ‘no fault divorce’ and the findings shall not be taken to have been affirmed.

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.

Both of them were married at a young age and are still in their youth with their whole life ahead of them. If as matured adults they have taken a conscious decision with regard to their incompatibility as human beings and have decided to part ways with respect to start their lives afresh, it becomes the duty of the Court to facilitate the same rather than to go by technicalities of the law.

While the appeal is disposed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties with regard to payment of one time permanent alimony with no further claims against each other, the withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the appellant, we consider the present a fit case to invoke our inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Case No.23/281/2011 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh. In (2003) 4 SCC 675, B.S. Joshi And Others Vs. State of Haryana And Another, dealing with quashing of a complaint under Section 498A, 323 and 406 IPC declined by the High Court for the reason that it was not compoundable, in view of the subsequent developments when the parties to the matrimonial dispute had settled their differences and agreed for mutual divorce, it was observed as follows:- “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in [5] DBCMA 107/2015 RASHMI SHARMA Vs. ASHWINI SHARMA view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that 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. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.”

The criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh are therefore quashed.

The present appeal is disposed in terms of the consent and mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J.
(NAVIN SINHA),C.J.
/KKC/

498a, 15yrs after separation & 11 yrs divorce notice barred by LIMITATION !! Delhi HC

498A 406 approx 15yrs after separation & 11yrs after divorce petition barred by limitation : Delhi HC

She seems to have done this after her appeal against husbands divorce decree is dismissed by the high court Hon Justice Shiv Narain DHINGRA ji appreciated the wife’s tactics and quashes the case as it is barred by limitation

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

Delhi High Court

Sudhir Kapur & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 10 August, 2010

Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: August 02, 2010

Date of Order: 10th August, 2010

+ Crl. M.C. No. 799/2009

10.08.2010

SUDHIR KAPUR & ORS. ….. Petitioner

Through: Mr.Sanjeev K. Grover, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANR. ….. Respondent

Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP

Mr. Pawan Narang & Mr. Puskal Advs. for R-2

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

JUDGMENT

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 540/07, registered against the petitioner at P.S. Defence Colony, under Section 498- A/406/34 IPC

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place on 4th March, 1984. The parties started living separate from each other in 1992. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent in 1996. The present FIR was lodged against the petitioner by wife under Section 498A/406 IPC after about 15 years of living separate from her husband and after about 11 years of filing the divorce petition.

3. It is argued by counsel for the respondent/wife that offence under Section 406 IPC was also involved and the dowry articles etc. of the wife were not given back. This averment has no substance. The wife had all opportunities right from 1992 onwards to demand back her articles, if any, lying with the husband. The very fact that wife did not demand any article from the husband after 1992 till lodging of FIR shows that there was no entrustment of property by wife to the husband or to his relatives. After husband had filed divorce petition, she had again opportunity to make an application before the concerned court under Hindu Marriage Act for the return of dowry articles, Istridhan, if any, under section 27 of the Act. Had there been any article lying with the husband, she would have moved the application. She did not initiate any such move, nor did she serve any notice on her husband or in laws for return of any of her articles lying with them. It is only when her appeal against the decree of divorce was dismissed by the High Court, and she preferred an SLP, she thought of lodging of an FIR also.

4. Under Section 468 of Cr. P.C., the cognizance of an offence where the maximum sentence of imprisonment is up to 3 years, can be taken within 3 years. Under Section 498A/406 IPC maximum sentence is up to three years imprisonment. Thus the cognizance of the offences against petitioner cannot be taken by the Court. The FIR lodged against the husband in respect of offences committed under Section 498A/406 IPC in 1992 or prior to that, is barred by limitation. I, therefore, allow the present petition and hereby quash FIR No. 540/2007, P.S. Defence Colony, New Delhi, registered under Sections 498A/406/34IPC. The petition stands allowed.

AUGUST 10, 2010

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

acm

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