Tag Archives: 498a misuse

Don’t convert BAIL 2 recovery proceedings & civil case 2 criminal case! Excellent Delhi HC Anticipatory

An elderly couple approach the Delhi HC seeking bail. Their son’s failed SECOND marriage is the cause of their misery. The young couple have met in London and married, stayed and separated in Dubai but the daughter in law has filed 498a etc on the elderly in-laws. The daughter in law has alleged gifts worth crores of rupees without much proof. The lower court has tried to make bail concomitant with recovery of money / promised settlement etc !! The Hon Delhi HC sees thru the entire matrix, appreciates that the elders have had little or NO role in the lives of the couple. The Hon orders that “…Since allegations in the complaint are to the effect that jewellery and gifts worth crores were given by the parents and relatives of the complainant, instant case would require a prior investigation by the investigating officer before petitioners are made to account for the gifts, whether at all the family of the complainant had the means to shower gifts of such magnitude…..” The court also reiterates that “…Case is thus made to admit petitioners to anticipatory bail. While so directing, I am conscious of the failed compromise talks before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but I cannot ignore the fact that proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. ….” and thus grants bail to the elders !!

Please note that this case is from 2007 !! yes approx 9.5 years ago !! the court has in many places says that the case against the elders is unwarranted ! the Hon court refers to multiple decisions where 498a has been misused including Sushil Kumr sharma case !!

Still in 2017 there seems to be NO let up to the number of false cases and ways to milk men !!

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

Delhi High Court

Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra vs State And Anr. [Along With Bail … on 21 August, 2007

Author: P Nandrajog

Bench: P Nandrajog

JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

FIR No.6/2007 dated 3.1.2007 under Section 498A/406 IPC PS Hazrat Nizamuddin.

  1. Vide Bail Application No. 1711/2007, Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No. 1716/2007, Sh. Harbhajan Singh Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.
  2. At the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in which Bail Application No. 1711/2007 has been drafted by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
  3. The same is a verbatim copy of Bail Application No. 1716/2007.
  4. Use of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start operating themselves by clicking a mouse.
  5. Little realizing that in Bail Application No. 1716/2007 reference to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. as father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred to as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. father-in-law of the complainant.
  6. In the instant case, the misdescription may be trivial. But in large number of cases I notice that the misdescription is not trivial, more so, when disputes relate to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. In said cases description of the accused with reference to the role assigned becomes relevant. Precious judicial time is wasted in identifying who is being referred to and in what context reference is being made pertaining to persons accused of offence and who have filed quashing petitions challenging the summoning order.
  7. It is hoped and expected that learned members of the Bar would justify them being referred to as ‘learned Counsel’. Their being learned must be reflected in their pleadings.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  8. Referring to the facts, why else would a father-in-law and mother-in-law be seeking bail? Of course, when their daughter-in-law has filed a complaint resulting in registration of FIR under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. This has happened in the instant case.
  9. Since issue of anticipatory bail has to be decided, reference to the FIR becomes necessary.
  10. Touching upon the salient features of the FIR, complainant Arti, stated that she met Jitender Singh Chopra, son of the applicants in London in July 2004 through common friends. She states that the two met a number of times and around 3rd week of September 2004 decided to get married in Dubai on 30.9.2004. She stated that she and Jitender Singh Chopra came to Delhi and got engaged. That at the time of engagement presents worth Rs. 15 lakhs were gifted by her parents to the in-laws and relatives of Jitender. That her in-laws gave her jewellery worth Rs. 40 lakhs. That at the asking of her prospective mother-in-law, for relatives who were not present at the engagement, her mother sent additional gifts worth Rs. 5 lakhs. That marriage between the complainant and Jitender was solemnized at Dubai on 27.10.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage her mother, relatives and friends gave gifts worth Rs. 70 lakhs. Her in-laws gifted her jewellery worth Rs. 90 lakhs. Next day her mother-in-law took away the jewellery for safe keeping. She and her husband came to Delhi on 3.11.2004 and stayed at the farm house of the in-laws. The couple celebrated their first Deepawali. On said function her relatives gave gifts worth Rs. 40 lakhs to her husband. That her mother and her relatives gave her ancestral jewellery worth Rs. 1.75 lakhs at said function. That her in-laws gave her expensive gifts and jewellery worth Rs. 80 lakhs. That when they were at Delhi her brother-in-law tried to force himself upon her. That she was disgraced by the family of her in-laws who stated that they expected that she would bring a Mercedes car in her dowry. That when the couple left for their honeymoon her husband compelled her to drink excessively as also to indulge in vulgar sexual acts. That since it was her second marriage she did not speak to anyone. That on 18.1.2005 she and her husband went back to Dubai. For said trip her husband demanded Rs. 25 lakhs from her mother. Her mother arranged Rs. 5 lakhs and gave the same to her husband. That her husband demanded more money. Her mother paid Rs. 15 lakhs. That she came back to Delhi on 29.12.2005 and in spite of requests to hand over her jewellery, none was being returned to her. That her father-in-law wanted her parents to transfer ownership rights of 2 floors of their house in name of her husband. That her mother-in-law had retained her jewellery.
  11. According to the petitioners the marriage at Dubai was financed by the petitioners. Entire stay of the family of the bride was paid for by the petitioners. That after the wedding, the newly wed came to Delhi to celebrate their first Deepawali and went back to Dubai in February 2005. They took on rent a villa and resided separately from the petitioners. That the couple separated due to temperamental differences. That their son sought divorce in London due to irreconcilable differences. That the FIR was a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by their son.
  12. Before dealing with the rival submissions on the issue whether petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail or not, it has to be noted that petitioners as also their second son i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant sought anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attempts were made to compromise the matter and in full and final satisfaction of all claims of the complainant not only the FIR be withdrawn but the couple could agree for an amicable settlement. Order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge records that a settlement was arrived at pursuant whereto complainant would be paid Rs. 4 crores in cash and a flat at DLF Gurgaon worth Rs. 60 lacs would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, the talks broke down inasmuch as offer was reduced to Rs. 2 crores.
  13. Petitioners when charged with attempting to wriggle out of an agreed settlement explained that their younger son was briefing the counsel and he was receiving instructions from the husband of the complainant for the reason any payment under the settlement had to be financed by the husband of the complainant. That unfortunately, their son i.e. husband of the complainant could not firm up his mind and for said reason settlement failed.
  14. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior Counsel for the applicants urged that proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a recovery proceedings. Learned senior Counsel urged that the anxiety of the Court to try and effect a settlement between the warring couple may be a laudable act but is alien to the exercise of jurisdiction while deciding an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Learned senior Counsel urged that the well known parameters viz. gravity of the offence, seriousness of the allegations constituting the offence, possibility of the accused absconding or threatening witnesses of the prosecution, inherent probabilities, for and against the accused are some of the factors which have to be considered by the Court while deciding an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
  15. Expanding the argument, learned senior Counsel submitted that documents annexed as Annexure-C to the petitions conclusively establish that the petitioners paid the entire bill at Dubai when marriage took place. Drawing attention to Annexure-D, learned senior Counsel urged that the same evidences that the newly married couple set up separate residence in Dubai. As regards the petitioners, learned senior Counsel urged that they were residents of Delhi. Their son was settled abroad. Except for participating in the joyous occasion of the marriage of their son and showering their blessings and gifts upon the newly wed as also to finance the marriage, the two had no role to play in the matrimonial life of the couple. Learned senior Counsel further urged that allegations in the FIR are alien to the social norms of the society from which complainant, her family and the petitioners come from. Learned senior Counsel explained that main items are gifted to the couple at the time of their marriage. Thereafter, as and when festive occasions occur, small gifts are exchanged. Learned senior Counsel urged that it was unbelievable that at the time of Deepawali celebrations after the couple got married, complainant’s family members would gift to their daughter and her in-laws, gifts worth Rs. 1.75 crores. Learned senior Counsel further submitted that the allegations of dowry demand are against the husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. Allegations of mental and physical cruelty are against the husband save and except a vague allegation that on one occasion father-in-law threw a plate at the complainant and abused her as a bitch. Learned senior Counsel stated that the two allegations pertaining to dowry demand against the father-in-law viz. that he expected his daughter-in-law to bring a Mercedes car and a demand for ownership rights of 2 floors in her parent’s house at Sunder Nagar are false. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the gravement of the allegation against the mother-in-law is that she retained the jewellery of the complainant.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  16. Learned senior Counsel urged that in view of the fact that the complainant and her husband had set up their matrimonial house at Dubai, a residence separate from that of the petitioners, considering the social background of the family of the complainant as also the petitioners it was unbelievable that the complainant would have handed over her jewellery to her mother-in-law.
  17. Fulcrum of opposition by learned Counsel for the complainant centered around the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding a settlement between the parties from which petitioners back tracked. Learned Counsel submitted that the said settlement evidenced the acknowledgment by the petitioners that the complainant had to be recompensed. Learned Counsel submitted that the jewellery articles of the complainant have yet to be recovered. Counsel submitted that the complainants have started dissipating their assets. Thus, counsel urged that no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
  18. It is not in dispute that the instant marriage was the second marriage of both parties. Thus, both would be presumed to be aware of not only their matrimonial obligations but even the matrimonial laws. Judicial authorities are replete with a caution by the Courts that the unfortunate tendency to rope in all family members of the in-laws is a growing trend which has two side effects. Firstly, innocent persons suffer the trauma of a criminal prosecution and secondly, even the accused get acquitted for the reason, false implication of innocent persons is followed by presentation of fabricated evidence before the Court. So inextricably interwoven is truth with lies that truth cannot be segregated from lies resulting in benefit of doubt being given even to the accused persons.
  19. More often than not, pertaining to dowry, Courts are faced with a dilemma inasmuch as tax avoidance is the norm in India. Huge volume of black money in circulation finds expression in ostentatious marriages. But when called upon to prove that the family had enough assets to justify the stated gifts gifted at the time of marriage, family members of the girl side have no answers. They cannot establish the means to justify their capacity to shower gifts worth crores.
  20. In the instant case, before the in-laws of the complainant can be called upon to account for the gifts given by the parents of the girl, the parents of the girl would have to establish their means and their capacity to gift items worth Rs. 3 crores to their daughter and her in-laws.
  21. As noted above, gravement of the allegations are directed principally against the husband. No doubt, there is reference against the petitioners pertaining to dowry demand and retention of jewellery, but, as noted above, allegations of dowry demand are against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law. Vice versa, allegations pertaining to retention of the jewellery of the complainant is against the mother-in-law and not the father-in-law. Thus, if at all, father-in-law may be answerable to a charge under Section 498A IPC. If at all, mother-in-law may be answerable for a charge under Section 406 IPC.
  22. Qua the mother-in-law a circumstance which stands out is that her son and her daughter-in-law had a separate residence at Dubai. The couple was married at Dubai. Whatever may be the jewellery gifted to the complainant at the time of marriage, there is no material on record that when she along with her husband came to India they made a declaration to the Customs Authority that personal jewellery worth crores was being brought by her i.e. the complainant to India. Greater probability would be that either jewellery of the value alleged to be gifted to her by the complainant was not gifted to her, or if gifted, the same was in her custody at Dubai.
  23. . Pertaining to the father-in-law I find that the allegations are general. It is not stated in the complaint that because father-in-law desired that the complainant should bring a Mercedes car he i.e. the father-in-law took vengeance against the complainant. What is stated in the FIR is that the father-in-law commented that he expected that the complainant would bring as part of dowry a Mercedes car.
  24. Prima facie, it is one thing to have a desire and express the same. It is altogether another thing to raise a demand as per the desire.
  25. Allegation of mental cruelty against the father-in-law pertains to an alleged incident when according to the complainant she served cold food to her father-in-law. Prima facie, said allegation of cruelty does not relate to a dowry demand.
  26. . The only other allegation pertaining to transfer of 2 floors in the house of the complainant’s parents at Sunder Nagar is without any particulars i.e. the day or the month when said demand was raised.
  27. In the report published as Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. in para 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court lamented as under: 13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests o lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
  28. In para 19 of the report published as Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India the Supreme Court observed as under:  19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentional provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a license to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike a the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. If the cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalized a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
  29. In the decision dated 23.2.2007 in Crl.M.C. No. 7262/2006 Neera Singh v. State and Ors. a learned Single Judge of this Court had pains to note as under: 4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under: 2. Rules in Accordance With Which Lists of Presents Are to Be Maintained. – (1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride. (2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom. (3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage; (b) shall be in writing; (c) shall contain: (i) a brief description of each present; (ii) the approximate value of the present; (iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and (iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship. (d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom. 5. The Metropolitan Magistrate should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statements of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  30. Admittedly, neither complainant nor her family members have complied with Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules 1985.
  31. Since allegations in the complaint are to the effect that jewellery and gifts worth crores were given by the parents and relatives of the complainant, instant case would require a prior investigation by the investigating officer before petitioners are made to account for the gifts, whether at all the family of the complainant had the means to shower gifts of such magnitude.
  32. I note that the husband of the complainant is paying to her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh.
  33. Learned Counsel for the State did not urge that the petitioners are not cooperating with the IO.
  34. The special circumstances of the case may be summarized:
    • (a) Marriage is a love marriage and took place at Dubai. There is prima facie evidence that marriage expenses were borne by the in-laws of the complainant.
    • (b) The young couple took up separate residence at Dubai and stayed their after the marriage till they came to India to celebrate their first Deepawali festival. The complainant stayed with her in-laws for about 10 days. The couple departed for their honeymoon.
    • (c) Allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the husband. Prima facie it appears to be a case of temperamental difference between the husband and the wife.
    • (d) There are no allegations of dowry demand against the mother-in-law. Allegation against her is of retaining the jewellery gifted by her parents as stated by the complainant to be in the value of over Rs. 2 crores. There is no evidence that jewellery of such magnitude was gifted.
    • (e) Allegations of dowry demand against the father-in-law only relate to transfer of ownership rights of 2 floors in a property at Sunder Nagar in the name of the husband of the complainant. The allegation is of a general nature. The time, date and month of demand has not been specified.
    • (f) The couple separated at Dubai. The petitioners did not have a joint residence with the complainant and thus could not be in possession of her jewellery.
  35. Case is thus made to admit petitioners to anticipatory bail. While so directing, I am conscious of the failed compromise talks before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but I cannot ignore the fact that proceedings for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. I find prima facie justification of the petitioners that their younger son was briefing the counsel and was informing the counsel what was being consented to by the son of the petitioners. If the son of the petitioners back tracks from his commitment, petitioners cannot be faulted with.
  36. I additionally note that the complainant is being paid a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh by her husband.
  37. Petition stands disposed of directing that on the petitioners surrendering their passport to the Investigating Officer and cooperating at the inquiry to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, in the event of the petitioners being arrested by the IO, the petitioners would be released on bail by the IO on the petitioners furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO in the above captioned FIR.
  38. Needless to state, the petitioners would join the investigation as and when required by the IO.
  39. Copy of the order be supplied dusty to learned Counsel for the petitioners.


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

 

Hon J Shri J.B. Pardiwala hits out at stereotype, copy-paste FIRs in his 498a quash !! Dec’16

Hon Justice Shri J.B. Pardiwala hits out at sterotype, copy-paste FIRs in his recent 498a quash !! Dec’16

“…20. This Court over a period of time has noticed that the First Information Report field by wife contains following allegations:
“1. The father of the wife is a beggar.
2. Rs.5,00,000/- has been demanded by the husband and his family members by way of dowry.”
Without these two allegations, no First Information Report in the State of Gujarat is complete so far as the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC is concerned….”

The Hon HC quashes this false 498a cases roping in relatives with an oblique motive !!

*************** case from Gujarat HC website *********************

R/CR.MA/7507/2015 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7507 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

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

BIPINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI PARMAR & 3….Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

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

Appearance:

MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4

MR.HIREN M MODI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 09/12/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT

  1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the applicants-original accused persons seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing the First Information Report registered as C.R. No.I-87/2015 with the Gotri Police Station, District-Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 294(b) read with Section 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
  2. The case of the first informant as reflected from the First Information Report may be summarized as under:

2.1 The first informant got married with the applicant no.1 on 19.05.2014. 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 sister-in-law of the first informant. It appears that within a very short time the matrimonial life of the first informant got disturbed. She thought fit to lodge an FIR on 31.03.2015 i.e. within almost one year from the date of the marriage alleging harassment and cruelty at the end of the applicants herein. It is alleged in the FIR that the husband used to ask the first informant to press his legs and head. It is further alleged that the applicants herein also used to ill-treat the first informant. It is alleged that the applicants used to taunt her that she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parental house.

  1. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the allegations leveled in the First Information Report are palpably false. The first informant could not adjust herself at the house of the applicants soon after the marriage. The learned counsel further pointed out that efforts were made by the people of the community to dissolve the marriage on certain terms and conditions. He pointed out that the first informant’s family demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to dissolve the marriage which was not acceptable to the applicants. He would submit that the allegations are stereo type. It is submitted that even if the entire case as put up by the first informant is accepted as true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498(A) are spelt out. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that the application may be allowed and FIR be quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  • On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant and Ms. Pathak, the learned APP for the State. Both the learned counsel would submit that the plain reading of the FIR prima-facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. It is submitted that this Court may not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations are true or false. A primafacie case is to be seen for the purpose of quashing of the FIR. In such circumstances referred to above both the learned counsel would submit that there being no merit in this application. The same may be rejected.

  • It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Code does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

  • The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

  • In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.

    (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
    against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
    
    ii) where the allegations in the first information report
    or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their
    entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
    
    (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but
    there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced
    clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
    

  • The Supreme Court, in the case of State of A.P. Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2646, interpreted clause (iii) referred to above, observing thus:
    "6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to
    bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is
    no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is
    clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case
    where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may
    or may not support the accusations. When exercising
    jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
    would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the
    evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
    reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
    sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
    Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of
    oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
    circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and
    should take all relevant facts and circumstances into
    consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an
    instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash
    vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time
    the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused
    to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden
    death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of
    the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court
    may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable
    offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
    otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in
    some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
    [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].A note of caution was, however,
    added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that
    too in rarest of rare cases. 
    
    The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as
    follows:
    
    "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
    report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
    face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
    facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
    accused.
    
    (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
    and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
    disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
    by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
    under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
    Section 155(2) of the Code.
    
    (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
    F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
    of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
    and make out a case against the accused.
    
    (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute
    a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
    offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer
    without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
    Section 155(2) of the Code.
    
    (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
    so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
    no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
    there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
    accused.
    
    (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
    of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
    which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
    institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where
    there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned
    Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
    aggrieved party.
    
    (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
    with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
    instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
    on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
    and personal grudge.
    
  • Bearing the aforesaid principles in mind, I need to consider whether the FIR deserves to be quashed so far as the applicants Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned. I have already set out the relations of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 with the petitioner No.1 i.e. the husband of the respondent No.2, the complainant.
  • A plain reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet papers reveal that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. Although the respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out prima-facie whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge. To prevent abuse of process of the Court, and to save the innocent from false prosecutions at the hands of unscrupulous litigants, the criminal proceedings, even if they are at the stage of framing of the charge, if they appear to be frivolous and false, should be quashed at the threshold. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  • In Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303(1), the Supreme Court observed the following:-

    "28. 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.
    
    29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
    emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which
    reads as under :
    
    "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
    subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or
    the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
    to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
    which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
    fine.
    
    Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'
    means :
    
    (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
    likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
    grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
    mental or physical) of the woman; or
    
    (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
    a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
    any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
    or is on account of failure by her or any person related to
    her to meet such demand."
    
    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. At the same time, rapid increase in the
    number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a
    matter of serious concern.
    
    31.The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
    responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social
    fiber 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
    fiber, 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.
    
    32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
    the implications and consequences are not properly
    visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead
    to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
    complainant, accused and his close relations.
    
    33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
    truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To
    find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these
    complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his
    immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even
    after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
    ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely
    careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and
    must take pragmatic realities into consideration while
    dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
    harassment of husband's close relations who had been living
    in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the
    place where the complainant resided would have an entirely
    different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are
    required to be scrutinized with great care and
    circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted
    criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in
    the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter
    of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant
    if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in
    jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of
    amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
    extremely long and painful.
    
    34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
    observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is
    warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common
    knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are
    reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of
    over implication is also reflected in a very large number
    of cases.
    
    35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
    concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also
    not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of
    ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints
    have not only flooded the courts but also have led to
    enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and
    happiness of the society. It is high time that the
    legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic
    realities and make suitable changes in the existing law.It
    is imperative for the legislature to take into
    consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic
    realities in consideration and make necessary changes in
    the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to
    send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to
    the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place
    it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take
    appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society."
    

  • In the aforesaid context, it will also be profitable to quote a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, decided on 2nd July, 2014. In the said case, the petitioner, apprehending arrest in a case under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prayed for anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court, having failed to obtain the same from the High Court. In that context, the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 6, 7 and 8 are worth taking note of. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  • They are reproduced below:-

        "6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in
        recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly
        revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was
        introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
        harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his
        relatives. 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, bedridden grand-
        fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters
        living abroad for decades are arrested. Crime in India 2012
        Statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau,
        Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons
        all over India during the year 2012 for offence under
        Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011.
        Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in
        2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and
        sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their
        arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons
        arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal
        Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under
        different sections of penal code, more than any other
        crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-
        sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as
        93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is
        lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are
        pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000
        are likely to result in acquittal.
    
        7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast
        scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There
        is a battle between the law makers and the police and it
        seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson
        implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of
        its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it
        is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression
        and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for
        caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been
        emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded
        desired result. 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. The attitude to
        arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable.
        It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack
        sensitivity or act with oblique motive.
    
        8. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a
        large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a
        balance between individual liberty and societal order while
        exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest
        as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As
        the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts
        scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no
        arrest should be made only because the offence is non-
        bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the
        police officers to do so. The existence of the power to
        arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of
        it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police
        officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No
        arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation
        of commission of an offence made against a person. It would
        be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is
        made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
        investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation.
        Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find
        any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased.
        Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the
        recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission
        submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of
        Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC), in the present form
        came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a
        recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd
        and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. ....
        ....."
    
    1. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2013, SC 181, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
      "19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of
      the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
      allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
      Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have
      been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the
      names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute
      without allegation of active involvement in the matter
      would not justify taking cognizance against them
      overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is
      a tendency to involve the entire family members of the
      household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a
      matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
      wedding.
      
      20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
      apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of
      G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC
      693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
      held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
      arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family
      members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation
      which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
      therein with which we entirely agree that: there has been
      an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times.
      Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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
      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 reasons which need not be mentioned
      here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
      parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
      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.
      
      The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the
      courts would not encourage such disputes.
      
      21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in
      the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
      it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of
      introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A 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 punish the husband and his
      relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her
      relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the
      proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A
      against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she
      has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives
      and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal
      to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be
      proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier.
      Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice
      quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C.
      would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It
      would however be a different matter depending upon the
      facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or
      not to exercise such a power."
      
    2. Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged.
  • Once the FIR is lodged under Sections 498A/406/323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 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 helter skelter 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. There is a growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband and if one of them happens to be of higher status or of a vulnerable standing, he or she becomes an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  • Ms. Pathak, the learned APP in his own way may be right in submitting that the Court, while exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code, should not embark upon an enquiry as regards the truthfulness of the allegations because, according to the learned APP, once there are allegations disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, then whether they are true or false, should be left for the trial Court to decide at the conclusion of the trial. According to the learned APP, at the best, the applicants could plead in their defence the category No.7, as indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana (supra).

  • Since Mr. Raval has raised such issue, I must deal with it as it goes to the root of the matter. For the sake of convenience, category 7, as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

    "(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
    with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
    instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
    on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
    and personal grudge."
    

  • I am of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the present one, a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of all close relatives of the husband is with an oblique motive, then even if the FIR and the charge-sheet disclose commission of a cognizable offence on plain reading of the both, the Court, with a view to doing substantial justice, should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the proposition of law as sought to be canvassed by the learned APP is applied mechanically to this type of cases, then in my opinion, the very inherent power conferred by the Code upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. I am saying so for the simple reason that if the wife, due to disputes with her husband, decides to not only harass her husband, but all other close relatives of the husband, then she would ensure that proper allegations are levelled against each and every such relative, although knowing fully well that they are in no way concerned with the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife. Many times the services of professionals are availed of and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to pick up any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the first information report and the charge-sheet papers discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
  • It is because of the growing tendency to involve innocent persons that the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC 958 has cautioned the Courts to act with circumspection. In the words of the Supreme Court “often innocent persons are also trapped or brought in with ulterior motives and therefore this places an arduous duty on the Court to separate such individuals from the offenders. Hence, the Courts have to deal such cases with circumspection, sift through the evidence with caution, scrutinize the circumstances with utmost care.”

  • This Court over a period of time has noticed that the First Information Report field by wife contains following allegations:

    “1. The father of the wife is a beggar.

    1. Rs.5,00,000/- has been demanded by the husband and his
      family members by way of dowry.”
  • Without these two allegations, no First Information Report in the State of Gujarat is complete so far as the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC is concerned.

    1. In such circumstances referred to above, this Court was compelled to observe the following in the judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.5819 of 2009.

      “31.Many times, the parents including the close relatives
      of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of
      salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours
      to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance
      or on account of sheer hatredness towards the husband and
      his family members, brings about complete destruction of
      marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in
      the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the
      Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No
      sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if
      there are fair chances of reconciliation between the
      spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a
      sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one
      another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain
      bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty
      quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and
      should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to
      destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The
      Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed
      from that point of view in determining what constitutes
      cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the
      physical and mental conditions of the parties, their
      character and social status. A very technical and hyper
      sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the
      very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes
      the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with
      such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a
      second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what
      will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very
      dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is
      concerned. The only reason why I am saying so is that
      instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the
      initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about
      nothing but hatredness for each other. There may be cases
      of genuine illtreatment and harassment by the husband and
      his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-
      treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police
      machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort
      and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and
      harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilized for the
      purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could
      be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents
      or relatives or friends. In all cases where wife complains
      of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC
      cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R is complete
      without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every
      matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the
      other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations,
      quarrels between spouses, which happen in day today married
      life, may also not amount to cruelty.

      1. Lord Denning, in Kaslefsky Vs. Kaslefsky (1950) 2 All
        ER 398 observed as under:-

        “When the conduct consists of direct action by one against
        the other, it can then properly be said to be aimed at the
        other, even though there is no desire to injure the other
        or to inflict misery on him. Thus, it may consist of a
        display of temperament, emotion, or perversion whereby the
        one gives vent to his or her own feelings, not intending to
        injure the other, but making the other the object-the butt-
        at whose expense the emotion is relieved.”

        When there is no intent to injure, they are not to be
        regarded as cruelty unless they are plainly and distinctly
        proved to cause injury to health ……..when the conduct
        does not consist of direct action against the other, but
        only of misconduct indirectly affecting him or her, such as
        drunkenness, gambling, or crime, then it can only properly
        be said to be aimed at the other when it is done, not only
        for the gratification of the selfish desires of the one who
        does it, but also in some part with an intention to injure
        the other or to inflict misery on him or her. Such an
        intention may readily be inferred from the fact that it is
        the natural consequence of his conduct, especially when the
        one spouse knows, or it has already been brought to his
        notice, what the consequences will be, and nevertheless he
        does it, careless and indifferent whether it distresses the
        other spouse or not. The Court is, however not bound to
        draw the inference. The presumption that a person intends
        the natural consequences of his acts is one that may not
        must-be drawn. If in all the circumstances it is not the
        correct inference, then it should not be drawn. In cases of
        this kind, if there is no desire to injure or inflict
        misery on the other, the conduct only becomes cruelty when
        the justifiable remonstrances of the innocent party provoke
        resentment on the part of the other, which evinces itself
        in actions or words actually or physically directed at the
        innocent party.”

      2. What constitutes cruelty in matrimonial matters has
        been well explained in American Jurisprudence 2nd edition
        Vol. 24 page 206. It reads thus:-

        “The question whether the misconduct complained of
        constitute cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is
        determined primarily by its effect upon the particular
        person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether
        the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a
        person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it
        would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That
        which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by
        another, and what may not be cruel to an individual under
        one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under
        another set of circumstances.”

    2. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that if the investigation of the First Information Report is permitted to continue, then it will be nothing but abuse of process of the law and travesty of justice. This is a fit case wherein the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised for the purpose of quashing the FIR. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

    3. The application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The First Information Report being C.R. No.I-87/2015 lodged before the Gotri Police Station, District- Vadodara, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.

    4. At this stage, I may only say that since the applicant no.1 and the first informant are quite young they should dissolve the marriage by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Court concerned so that both can start living their own life.

    (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

    ABHISHEK

    Page 20 of 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 20

    Created On Tue Jan 03 17:37:40 IST 2017

    In India, getting married is like joining the Mafia. you can only Join but Mafia groups, but u cant leave them !!!

    In India, getting married is like joining the Mafia. The rule with mafia is that you can only Join but Mafia groups cant leave them !!! If you tried to leave, you OR your close ones would be killed, tortured, maimed… Many do NOT understand this, but every single day there are 100s and 1000s who try to leave and get tortured OR their relatives are tortured, arrested etc……. here is one more case….
    =========================
    * She left years ago while she was pregnant
    * He pleaded her to come back
    * She did not, never allowed to meet the child
    * He filed for divorce after 5 years of their separation with no sign of her coming back
    * She retorted with a #498A and got his family arrested
    * His younger sister was arrested too and remained behind bars for 5 days
    * Since then she’s been under depression.
    * Was thrown out of the job.
    * Now the family is being pressurised to give 20 Lacs for compromise. Moolah to soothe the alleged crime !!!
    * He wants me to speak to his sister and take her out of the depression. I don’t know if I will be able to but I know she’s a ‘woman’ too

    #498a #every_day_498a

    shared from the timeline of Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj

    No dowry or cruelty soon b4 wife’s death! No evidence except bald statements! ALL acquitted in 306, 304B, 498A. Raj HC

    Sad story of how a husband is acquitted 21 years AFTER the death of his wife. The Hon. HC scrutinizes the evidence and notices that there is NO evidence to prove either dowry demand or cruelty linking to the death !!

    #SoonBeforeDeath #ProsecutionToProve #Cruelty_SoonBeforeDeath #soon_before_death_304B_(1)_of_IPC #acquittal #acquittalIn304B

    The Honourable HC appreciates states “….. On an overall analysis of the entire sequence of events, … it is apparent that prosecution has failed to produce/bring on record any evidence indicating specific demand of dowry soon before the death of Vimla. In fact, in the entire statements of the above three witnesses, except for the statement that there is no custom of giving dowry in their community, there is no reference of the word dowry in their statements!!….”

    “…Further, the few allegations which have been made pertaining to alleged ill treatment by father-in-law and mother-in-law like not giving food to Vimla, those allegations specifically pertains to the period immediately after the birth of first child, after first year of marriage and, thereafter, there is specific evidence regarding the fact that Ramesh thereafter took Vimla to Bombay and at Bombay they were living peacefully…..”

    “…In those circumstances, apparently, it cannot be said from the evidence available on record that there was any demand of dowry on the part of the appellant Ramesh Kumar. So far as the allegation about beating being given by the appellant and father-in-law and mother-in-law to the deceased Vimla are concerned, the statements are too general and non-specific …”

    “….As discussed extensively, there is no evidence available on record about any ill treatment/harassment by appellant except for bald statements about his giving beating to deceased Vimla. As already noticed the evidence only points to some such incident by the father-in-law/mother-in-law for which also there is no reference in Ex.P/5 and, therefore, there is no iota of evidence regarding abetment to suicide as well….”

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

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
    J U D G M E N T :

    S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 221/1997

    Ramesh Kumar
    vs.
    State of Rajasthan

    DATE OF ORDER : 12th July, 2016

    P R E S E N T
    HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

    Mr.Suresh Kumbhat, for the appellant.
    Mr. Arjun Singh, Public Prosecutor.

    BY THE COURT:

    This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28/4/1997 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.54/95, whereby, the appellant Ramesh Kumar has been convicted for the offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and has been senteced to imprisonment as under:

    U/s 498A IPC : 3 years R.I., Rs.1000/- fine, in default 3 months R.I.
    U/s 304B IPC : 7 Years R.I., Rs.5000/- fine, in default 6 months R.I.
    U/s 306 IPC : 7 Years R.I., Rs.500/- fine, in default 6 months R.I.
    All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
    By the said judgment, other two accused Shanker Lal and Nopi Bai, parents of appellant Ramesh Kumar, were acquitted.

    The brief facts of the case are that on 19/6/1995, Shanker Lal, father of the appellant, lodged an FIR indicating therein that his son Ramesh Kumar (Appellant) was married to Vimla 05 years ago; they are having one daughter Mamta aged about 2 years and a son Ravi aged about 06 months; at about 8.00 am on the said day Ramesh Kumar, his wife Vimla and other family members went to plough the field; at about 10.30 am his son Pratap informed him that he went to the well to start the pump, the pump did not start and Pratap found that one `odna’ (shorter version of saree) was lying near the motor; Pratap went to the well and Ramesh Kumar and Phoola Ram also came to the well and saw that clothes of woman were lying there; they went back to the house to search Ramesh’s wife and children but they were not found; Ramesh Kumar and Phoola Ram informed Pratap that about 10.00 am Vimla told that she is going to give milk to her children and Vimla along with Mamta & Ravi fell into the well.

    On the said report proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated by SDM, Bali and after investigation they lodged FIR under Section 498A and 304B IPC and after investigation challan was filed against appellant Ramesh Kumar, his father Shanker Lal and mother Nopi Bai. After trial, Shanker Lal and Nopi Bai were acquitted and appellant Ramesh Kumar was convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

    On behalf of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, whereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded; on behalf of the prosecution documents Ex.P/1 to P/32 were produced and defence produced the statement of Smt. Kastu as D-1.

    While P.W.4 to P.W.12 were declared hostile, the trial court based on the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3, Shesha Ram-brother, Mangi Lalfather and Smt. Kastumother, though brother and father during the course of their statement were also declared hostile, and based on the evidence available on record convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A and 304B IPC with the aid of Section 113A & 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The other accused Shanker lal and Nopi Bai were acquitted, as noticed hereinbefore.

    It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a bare perusal of the entire sequence of events as brought on record by the prosecution would clearly show that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the appellant and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that there is no evidence worth the name regarding the appellant seeking dowry and, therefore, the conviction under Section 498A and 304B cannot be sustained. With reference to the letters Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 it was submitted that the letters, even if taken as proved, were written between the period 13/4/1993 and 03/07/1993 and the incident has happened on 19/6/1995 i.e. almost after two years and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 304B regarding ‘demand of dowry soon before death’ is totally missing. It was further submitted that a bare reading of the letters would indicate that the same are nowhere connected with the demand of dowry but infact pertain to the amount which was lying with the appellant’s father-in-law along with some more amount as loan and, therefore, from the very nature of the said documents, it cannot be said that any dowry was ever demanded by the appellant. With reference to the statement of Shesha Ram and Mangi Lal, brother and father of deceased Vimla, it was submitted that from both the statements it is ex facie clear that the appellant did not demand any dowry and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside.

    With reference to the conviction under Section 306 IPC it was submitted that the entire statements of Mangi Lal and Kastu, father and mother of deceased Vimla, clearly indicate about some dissatisfaction from the mother-in-law only and there is no reference whatsoever regarding any dissatisfaction/dispute with the appellant and, therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for abetment of suicide by deceased Vimla and, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was also submitted that the documents Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 which have formed the basis for conviction are full of overwriting, wherein, the Investigating Officer P.W.16 has indicated that he did not get examined said documents and that overwriting in said letters was apparent and, therefore, said documents could not have been relied on by the prosecution.

    Reliance was placed on Harpal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : 2004 (2) R.Cr.D 274, Devender Singh vs. State of Haryana : 2007 (1) Crimes 228 (SC), Manoj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan : 2008 (1) Cr. L.R.(Raj.) 865, Vikram Singh vs. State of Rajasthan : 2007 (1) Current Judgments (Raj.) Criminal 295, Indrajit Sureshprasad Bind & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat : 2013 Cr.L.R.(SC) 403 and Bakshish Ram & anr. vs. State of Punjab : 2013 Cr.L.R.(SC) 753.

    Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that from the material available on record it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Vimla along with her two minor children, Mamta and Ravi, committed suicide on account of demand of dowry by the appellant and, therefore, his conviction is justified and the judgment of the trial court does not call for any interference.

    I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

    The ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC pertaining to dowry death, which has got implication in the present case are death of a woman within seven years of marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances, woman being subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry. Further, Section 113A of the Evidence Act provides for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman in case it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or relatives of her husband had subjected her to cruelty and Section 113B of the Act provides for presumption as to dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death of a woman she was subject by such persons to cruelty and harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry.

    A scanning of the evidence available on record indicates that P.W.1 Shesha Ram, brother of deceased Vimla, stated that his uncle Mangi Lal was in service at Bombay; Ramesh was in service at Bhiwandi; he was not aware about the nature of relation between Vimla and her husband as he used to come to the village once in a year; once or twice Vimla told him at Sadri that Ramesh used to give her beating. The said witness then referred to an incident of some Sunday regarding which he did not indicate any date or period and stated that he along with Puna Ram, Durga Ram and his uncle Mangi Lal went to Bhiwandi to meet Ramesh, where Ramesh sought monetary help from his uncle and offered to pay interest; his uncle told Ramesh that as he is in service he did not have the money; Ramesh had asked for Rs.50,000/-. Witness concluded his statement qua the said visit by indicating that that was the conversation which took place between Ramesh and Mangi Lal and there was no other discussion and then stated that Ramesh told his uncle that he will have to give the amount under any circumstance, whereafter, the said witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Assistant Public Prosecutor, wherein, he exhibited his statement during police investigation as Ex.1. In cross examination by the counsel for the accused, he stated that Vimla told him 6-7 times about beating and as to when Vimla told him about the said aspect he was not aware of the year and time and reiterated that he used to visit village once in a year. When the witness was asked about other details qua Vimla as to birth of her children, he expressed ignorance. On further cross examination regarding the location of Ramesh’s room at Bhiwandi, he expressed ignorance and with regard to his visit he stated that Ramesh and Vimla were sitting happily. He expressed ignorance about Ramesh lending some money to Mangi Lal. Said statement of P.W.1 Shesha Ram is full of contradictions as noticed hereinbefore, he started with the fact that he met Vimla once or twice in Sadri when she informed about beating given by Ramesh, however, in the cross examination he claimed that Vimla told him 6-7 times regarding beating given to her. The said witness is cousin brother of deceased Vimla and is totally unaware of her family circumstances i.e. birth of her children and in those circumstances, the communication between Shehsa Ram and Vimla regarding her personal affairs, when admittedly Shesha Ram visited his village only once in a year from Bombay, specially in view of rural background of the parties involved, appears to be wholly improbable. The witness even qua the meeting indicated that Ramesh asked for monetary help and also offered to pay interest on the said amount, however, nowhere the witness has indicated anything about the point of time, not even the year has been indicated as to when the said incident regarding their visit to Bhiwandi happened, as such, it cannot be said that the alleged demand could be termed as demand for dowry.

    Mangi Lal, P.W.2, father of deceased Vimla, indicated that relations between Ramesh and Vimla were (??? ???) normal. Ramesh used to serve at Bombay and Vimla was living at Bali. He alleged that Vimla was living at Bali peacefully for 12 months, whereafter, her in-laws stopped giving food to her. He stated that Ramesh Kumar wrote letters to him demanding Rs.2 lacs, which were handed over to Police and marked as Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. He also exhibited a letter written by Vimla to the community as Ex.P/5. He also stated that he met Vimla at Bombay, where she stated that everything was peaceful and she has no problem; Ramesh used to ask for Rs.2 lacs sometimes and Rs.35,000/- sometimes. When he stated that father-in-law and mother-in-law of Vimla & her husband forced her to commit suicide, he was declared hostile and was cross examined by Assistant Public Prosecutor, wherein, he exhibited his statement during investigation as Ex.P/6 and admitted the production of letters Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5. In cross examination by the counsel for the accused, most of the allegations pertain to father-in-law and mother-in-law. A look at the statement indicates prodution of letters Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5, making statement about demand of Rs.2 lacs and sketchy allegations only pertain to in-laws and not against appellant Ramesh Kumar.

    A look at the letters Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 reveals that while Ex.P/2 is dated 13/4/1993 indicating that Ramesh was not well and that Mangi Lal should come with Rs.2 lacs for treatment and if he does not turn up then they should deem that their son-in-law is no more. The Investigating Officer qua the said letter indicated that there may be interpolation with the figures. The document Ex.P/3 dated 15/6/1993 is a piece of paper, wherein, it is indicated that please pay Rs.2 lacs to Phoola Ram, qua the said piece of paper also the Investigating Officer stated likelihood of interpolation in the figures, which is apparent from the bare look at the said exhibit. The third document is a letter dated 3/7/1993 (Ex.P/4), wherein, it is indicated that Mangi Lal should repay Rs.25,000/- given by Ramesh along with Rs.10,000/-, in total Rs.35,000/- by way of draft. It was indicated that the amount was paid by him two years back and, therefore, he can also lend and that amount would be returned back with interest. The document Ex.P/5 is a Note dated 29/11/1993 written by Vimla addressed to Panchas indicating that she was at her parents home for six months and there should be some settlement. Further reference was made that nobody has turned up from her in-laws to take her back and that she does not want to go back to her in-laws place. In his statement, Mangi Lal made bald statement about demand of Rs.2 lacs by appellant Ramesh and produced document Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 for supporting the said contention. However, a bare look at the said documents, as noticed hereinbefore, would indicate that besides the fact that there are apparent interpolations in the figures, from none of the communication it can be deciphered as to demand was in relation to dowry by appellant Ramesh Kumar. On the other hand, the letter Ex.P/4 indicates calling for return of the amount paid by Ramesh Kumar to Mangi Lal and offering interest on the additional amount requested by him. The said document, conclusively indicates that other communications Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3, apparently cannot be termed as any demand for dowry. Further the indication by the father Mangi Lal regarding his daughter living peacefully at Bombay when he met her, also clearly indicates that in so far as appellant was concerned, there was apparently no dispute between the husband and the wife. The letter/representation dated 29/11/1993 (Ex.P/5) said to have been written by Vimla also does not indicate any demand of dowry from any quarter and only a grievance has been made that her in-laws were not taking her back from her parents’ house.

    In view thereof, from the documents produced by Mangi Lal P.W.2 and from his statement also, nothing has emerged so as to bring home the allegations/charge against the appellant Ramesh Kumar.

    P.W.3 Kastu,who is mother of deceased indicated that the first child was born to Vimla after about one year of her marriage; the relations of Vimla with her in-laws were normal when she ws sent back after delivery; thereafter, her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to quarrel with her and used to give her beating and would not give food to her. She made reference to communication made to Panchas of the Samaj regarding dispute after Vimla came to Sadri (parental home); Ramesh Kumar had written 2-3 letters, however, she was not aware of the contents thereof and her husband informed her that Ramesh was demanding amount of money, whereafter, Ramesh took Vimla to Bali and from there to Bombay. She alleged that husband of Vimla and her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to give beating and used to demand money. In cross examination she stated that Vimla returned from Bombay to Bali and she did not indicate anything about beating being given to her. She stated about beating given by mother-in-law when Ramesh was at Bombay; Ramesh took Vimla to Bombay where she remained for about 1 -2 years and a son was born to her at Bombay. A bare look at the said statement of Kastu, it can be deciphered that she made reference about relations being normal till the birth of first child and thereafter, when Vimla went to her in-laws place there was some dispute and when she returned back to her parental house and remained there for six months. Thereafter, Ramesh took her back and from there they went to Bombay and stayed at Bombay for over two years and relations were normal inasmuch as Vimla gave birth to her second child at Bombay i.e. place of her husband and whereafter, the incident has happened. The letters which have been written over a period of seven months during the period 3.4.1993 to 29.11.1993, pertain to the period when Vimla was at her parental home. Besides above, there is no other evidence as all other witnesses i.e. P.W.4 to P.W.12 have been declared hostile and P.W.13 to P.W.17 are official witnesses.

    On an overall analysis of the entire sequence of events, as noticed hereinbefore, it is apparent that prosecution has failed to produce/bring on record any evidence indicating specific demand of dowry soon before the death of Vimla. In fact, in the entire statements of the above three witnesses, except for the statement that there is no custom of giving dowry in their community, there is no reference of the word dowry in their statements. Further, the few allegations which have been made pertaining to alleged ill treatment by father-in-law and mother-in-law like not giving food to Vimla, those allegations specifically pertains to the period immediately after the birth of first child, after first year of marriage and, thereafter, there is specific evidence regarding the fact that Ramesh thereafter took Vimla to Bombay and at Bombay they were living peacefully.

    In those circumstances, apparently, it cannot be said from the evidence available on record that there was any demand of dowry on the part of the appellant Ramesh Kumar. So far as the allegation about beating being given by the appellant and father-in-law and mother-in-law to the deceased Vimla are concerned, the statements are too general and non-specific inasmuch as it is admitted on record that Ramesh used to reside at Bhiwandi during the period when allegation of giving beating has been indicated whereas Vimla is stated to be staying at Sadri with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and in the letter Ex.P/5 dated 29/11/1993 written to Panchas also there is no reference of any beating being given to deceased Vimla and,therefore, the prosecution has failed to being home even the said allegation against appellant Ramesh Kumar.

    Even as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the demand, if any, (though it has been held hereinbefore that there was no such demand) was made between the period 13/4/1993 to 3/7/1993 based on Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/4, whereas, Vimla committed suicide on 19/6/1995 i.e. after almost two years.

    Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Dattaraj & Ors. : 2016 (2) RLW 1573 (SC) held that as the demand was made about two years before the occurrence, the same was too remote to the occurrence and, therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of ‘soon before her death’ as contemplated under Section 304B (1) of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further with reference to its judgment in the case of Appasaheb vs. State of Maharashtra : (2007) 9 SCC 721 and Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2015) 6 SCC 477 refused to consider the demands made by the accused in the said cases for purchasing the agricultural land and also with reference to sewing machine to be treated as demands constituting ‘dowry’.

    As discussed extensively, there is no evidence available on record about any ill treatment/harassment by appellant except for bald statements about his giving beating to deceased Vimla. As already noticed the evidence only points to some such incident by the father-in-law/mother-in-law for which also there is no reference in Ex.P/5 and, therefore, there is no iota of evidence regarding abetment to suicide as well.

    The trial court while making reference to the various statements, frowning on the conduct of the witnesses, who turned hostile specially P.W.4 Prakash, based on drawing presumption under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, convicted the accused.

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bakshish Ram (supra) held that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment, in other words the prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural and accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring other than in normal circumstances.

    In the present case, the prosecution was obliged to prove that appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty/soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and in view of the fact that prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Vimla was subjected to cruelty by the appellant/subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in connection with any demand of dowry, the presumption under Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act does not arise and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained.

    In view of the above discussion, this Court is satisfied that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant and same is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction of appellant Ramesh Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 304B and 498A IPC is set aside. The amount of fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded back to him.

    (ARUN BHANSALI), J.

    baweja/

    Wife runs away in ’09. Elders forced 2 ‘accept her with diginity & honour’ in ’16 for bail! Mad Mad 498a

    A woman has deserted matrimonial house in 2009 & has happily filed 498a cocktail (probably in 2015 / 2016). This 498a woman is NOT present in the current hearing as well. She doesn’t seem to be represented by any lawyer (only AP for the state on the opposite side) . However to get their bail and freedom, elderly parents of the husband are forced to say “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”

    This is worse than being a slave… !! Don’t men have ANY dignity in this country ? why is there such a stipulation for a bail that too when there is NO evidence of physical violence the case is not properly tried  ? and no signs of her for so many years ?? why are men and their elders dragged to courts JUST on the words of a wife ? that too a deserter ? should such a stipulation be necessary at this stage BEFORE any evidence, inquiry or trial ?


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
    Criminal Miscellaneous No.19892 of 2016
    Arising Out of PS.Case No. -448 Year- 2009 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- SUPAUL


    1.Lakhan Mishra, Son of Late Rajbanshi Mishra
    2. Sumitra Devi @ Bibha Devi @ Sumitra Devi, Wife of Lakhan Mishra
    ….. …. Petitioner/s
    Versus
    1. The State of Bihar.
    2. Meena Devi Daughter of Shobha Kant Jha, Resident of village- Bhim

    Nagar, P.S. Birpur District- Supaul….. …. Opposite Party/s
    http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com


    Appearance :
    For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
    For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary(App)


    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

    ORAL ORDER

    2 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

    The petitioners being parents of the husband of the complainant are apprehending arrest in a complaint case wherein process has been directed to be issued after cognizance being taken for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

    Basic accusation is of torture.

    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the complainant with son of the petitioners was performed in 2004 when the complainant deserted the matrimonial house in 2009. The petitioners and the husband of the complainant are ready to keep the complainant with full dignity and honour. A statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 9 of the petition which reads as follows :- “That the petitioners are ready to kept the opposite party no.2 with full human dignity and honour. Even the husband (Suman Mishra) is ready to kept his wife (opposite party no.2) with full love and affection…..”. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    It is further submitted that the thrust of accusation is against the husband of the complainant and accusation levelled against the petitioners are omnibus and general.

    Considering the aforesaid facts, let the above named petitioners be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Saharsa in connection with Complaint Case No.448 C/2009, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

    (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/-

    U T

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