Tag Archives: 498a quash

Second #FAKE #498a filed on same Fake grounds at a different police station! #Quashed !! Anup Agrawal vs The State Of #Madhya #Pradesh on 16 #April, #2018

Notes

Soon after marriage wife demands LAKHS and LAKHS of money from her newly wed husband !! The Husband is unable to provide the same !! So she refuses to join matrimonial home. Wife then goes on to file #FAKE #498a at #Indore PS. The Indore police arrange for counseling sessions and the woman agrees that there were “differences” between the couple (NOT dowry cruelty !! ) and they agree to part ways !

Still the woman files a SECOND fake 498a from a different Police station. Husband tries to impress on the second PS that the case in the same grounds the first cace (which was closed) . Still the second PD file a charge sheet !

So the husband and co run to MH HC and seek quash. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The Hon MP HC sees the ABUSE of process of law and quashes the entire 498a case !!


Anup Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2018

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anup Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2018

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..)

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi

M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017

Anup Agrawal & Ors.

vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.


Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person.

Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Vinod Kuma Bhavsar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.


ORDER

(Passed on April 2018 )

  1. The applicants filed instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The code’) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated 06/01/2017 for commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in respect of the aforesaid FIR. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  2. 2. The necessary facts leading to filing of the instant petition are that the marriage of applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal was solemnized with respondent No.2-Trupti Agrawal on 24/04/2014 as per Hindu rituals and customs. Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the applicants alleging that in the marriage her parents had given ornaments, household articles and cash of Rs.3.50 Lacs to the applicants. However, after the marriage, all the accused persons started to harass the respondent No. 2 alleging that her parents had given nothing in the marriage and they demanded money from her. At the time of Diwali festival in the year 2014 the applicants beat her and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. On the basis of aforesaid allegations an FIR for commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 was registered against the applicants at Police-Station Lasudiya and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In the month of June 2015, the applicant was transferred to Ahemdabad but the respondent No.2 refuse to accompanied him, since she did not want to give her job in the ICICI Bank, Indore. Applicant No.1 tried to relocate back to Indore. Respondent No.2 informed the applicant No.1-in the mid-August 2014 first time that she owed a debt liability of approximately Rs.25 Lacs against Indore Development Authority flat situated in Anandvan (Highrise), Scheme No. 140 and she is paying an EMI of approximately Rs.25,000/- towards the said loan from July 2015. On 01/12/2015, respondent No.2 asked the applicant No.1 to help her for Rs. 6,54,080/- to enable her to get possession of the aforesaid flat, however, due to a shortage of funds the applicant No.1 was unable to help the respondent No.2 to pay the same and because of this respondent No.2 got furious with the applicant No.1 and refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Applicant No.1 applied for new job and he got his new assignment at Pune but respondent No.2 refused to come to Pune saying that she cannot stay in relationship with a person, who cannot arrange money for her when she needs it. On 20/12/2016, a family meeting was arranged in Neemuch to resolve the said issued. But respondent No.2 did not turn up on the aforesaid date. Thereafter, applicants made several attempts for reconciliation but they have not received any response from respondent No.2. On 27/09/2016, at the house of family friend of the applicant a family meeting was arranged, in which respondent No.2 alongwith her father and other relatives were present in an extremely aggressive manner and threatened that they would implicate the applicants in false case under the Domestic Violence and Dowry Prohibition Act in order to harass and humiliate the applicants and tarnish their reputation. They abused applicant Nos. 2 & 4 and attempted to assault the applicant No.1. In this regard applicant No.4 lodged a complaint against the said intimidation and threatening in the Police-Station at Neemuch. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  3. 3. On 01/12/2016, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the applicants at the Mahila Thana, Indore alleging that the she was treated with cruelty by the applicants in order to extract the dowry from her parents. There upon the applicants were summoned by the Mahila Thana, Indore. Whereupon the police recorded the statement of the applicants and respondent No.2 . During counseling proceedings and respondent No.2 could not substantiate her case against the applicants and then she sought some time to think and to provide evidence of her allegations against the applicants. On 18/12/2016, another counseling session was conducted, in which they came to the conclusion that the differences have arisen between them and respondent No.2 was agreed to file a petition for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the condition that she wanted back of her belongings that may be lying at the house of applicant No.1. On 18/12/2016, the respondent No.2 collected her remaining belongings under the supervision of the SHO, Mahila Thana from their rented housed situated at Nipaniya, Indore and the Police-Station Mahila Thana filed a closure report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.
  4. 4. On 06/01/2017, the respondent No.2 again made a false complaint against the applicants with identical facts at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore, where FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 got registered for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of the IPC against the applicants. Then the applicant No.1 tried in every possible manner to bring to the notice of the Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore that the said FIR had been registered on the basis of a false and malicious complaint and that the said issues between the parties stood resolved, with the written consent of the respondent No.2, during the previous proceedings in the Mahila Thana, Indore, in December 2016. However, no heed was paid to the requests of the applicant No.1 and charge-sheet was filed against the applicants before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The aforesaid charge-sheet is completely malafide and illegal and there is no ground for prosecution of the applicants are available. Only vague and omnibus allegations has been made in the complaint, which are totally false and concocted, therefore, FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated 06/01/2017 for commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in respect of the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  5. 5. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has supported the criminal prosecution on the ground that prima facie the allegations levelled against the applicants are made out, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
  6. 6. I have considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and have perused the documents placed on record along with the present application.
  7. 7. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for exercising powers available under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the following manner: ” 20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 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 specifically if it happens soon after the wedding.
  8. 8. In another judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd; (2016) 6 SCC 310, wherein the Hon’ble Court referred to the earlier decision, observed in the following manner:- “15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, 1988 SCC (Cri) 234}, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7) “7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  9. 9. However, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotdher, AIR 2013 SC 506 that the power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as the case may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be no reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of legal proceedings. Thus, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of charge against the accused.
  10. 10. It has been held in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, that where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with male 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, extraordinary or inherrent powers reserved to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash the first information report.
  11. 11. In the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court , the plain reading of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, goes to show that the allegations relating to commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC are omnibus and do not refer to any specific act of the applicants. Although she has made an allegation that on 27/04/2014, when they had gone to Shimla (H.P.) for their honeymoon, the applicant No.1-taunted her alleging that her father has not given anything in the dowry and on Diwali festival of the year 2014, the applicants beat her with respect to demand of dowry, but she has not made any complaint regarding these incidents till 2016, which clearly indicates that all these allegations are vague and false. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  12. 12. On 18/12/2016, at Mahila Thana Indore respondent No.2 made the following statement, which reads as under:- ” I, Trupti W/o Anup Agrawal, give this undertaking today i.e. on 18/12/2016 after counseling at Mahila Thana, Indore both of us husband and wife thinks that our thoughts does not match and it is not possible for us to live together any more. I wants to return my belongings from my husband and he is agreed to return the same. We will transfer our belongings with mutual understanding and we will file a divorce petition before the Court with mutual consent.”
  13. 13. The reproduced portion makes it clear that after counseling sessions both the parties came to the conclusion that the differences have arisen between them, therefore, they cannot be live together and respondent No.2 was agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the context of the aforesaid understanding which has been arises between the parties, Mahila Thana Indore filed a closure report of the matter on 13/12/2016.
  14. 14. However, on 06/01/2017, the respondent lodged FIR at Police-Station Lasudiya for the same ground by suppressing the proceedings of Mahila Thana, Indore. In the FIR lodged at Police-Station-Lasudiya she alleged that even after 2-3 counseling sessions, the applicants persisted for their demand of dowry, which is absolutely contrary to the proceedings held at Mahila Thana, Indore. From the proceeding of Mahila Thana, Indore, it is transpired that after 2-3 days of the marriage respondent No.2 stayed with her husband-Anup Agrawal and sister-in-law-Alka Agrawal at Indore. Applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal due to his transfer left to Ahemdabad and then to Pune alone for the reasons that respondent No.2 was working at ICICIU Bank, Indore and she did not go with him. From the impugned FIR, it is clear that respondent No.2 is living separately since 23/11/2015 and she has not interested to live with her husband, therefore, it is difficult to believed that the applicants subjected her to cruelty on the pretext of demand of dowry. From the statement of the respondent No.2 given before the Mahila Thana, Indore, it is apparent that applicant Nos. 2 & 4 never lived with her, therefore, it cannot be accepted that they made any demand of dowry with the respondent No.2 and ill treated her with regard to the fulfillment of their demand. After counseling at Mahila Thana, Indore respondent No.2 and applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal, agreed that they will file a petition for divorce in writing and the parties were rided for court proceedings for the reason that the respondent No.2 does not want to live with applicant No.1 anymore. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No.2 has already filed a divorce petition against applicant No.1 at family Court, Indore. While Mahila Thana, Indore has filed a closure report on the complaint filed by respondent No.2, then registration of FIR against the applicants for the same ground at Police-Station Lasudiya is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.
  15. 15. Under these circumstances, the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated 06/01/2017 for commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in respect of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi) Judge

skt Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari Date: 2018.04.17 10:30:08 +05’30’

Anup Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2018
— Read on indiankanoon.org/doc/193260203/

Advertisements

Dowry case – FIR quashed !!

#Dowry #498a #Quash
Dowry harassment—When the allegations are shown to be non-specific and not of the degree of seriousness contemplated in law, and when the applicants accused are shown to be living separately coupled with attendant facts and aspects noticed and noted, the alleg mations become too bald to be sustained in law—FIR quashed. : 2017 (2) LRC 465(Guj)

Hon HC is very concerned that wife’s getting ONLY 84 LAKHS from 498a quash & settlement. ONLY 84 lakhs !

Hon HC says it repeatedly checked with the wife before she agreed to take ONLY 84 lakhs …… before quasing 498a etc cocktail !!

By the way, she filed a 498a cocktail to get the settlement done !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1260 OF 2017
1. Nipul Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 40 years, Occ: Architect

2. Mrs. Neela Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 63 years, Occ: Housewife

3. Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 70 years, Occ: No

Residing at 302, Mary Anne Heights, 3rd Road, GPS III, Opp: Cafe-Coffee Day,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. …. Petitioners

– Versus –

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Mrs. Vaishali Nipul Panchal,
Age 36 years, Occ: Service,
R/a Room No.7, Building No.1,
Kangra Bhavan, 232, Dr. Anny
Besent Road, Opp: Potdaar
Hospital, Warli, Mumbai. …. Respondents
Mr. P.R. Yadav i/by Ms Priyanka Dubey for the Petitioners.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. D.V. Saroj for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 07, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per Shri S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

 

  1. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
  2. 2. The complainant Vaishali is present in Court. She admits that on 4-6-2015 her statement was recorded by the concerned police station, namely, Vakola Police Station, Mumbai and an FIR was registered. The FIR No.254/2015 alleges offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 504, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
  3. 3. A request is made by the accused including the husband of the respondent/original complainant to quash this FIR.
  4. 4. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that, this is a fall out of a matrimonial dispute. That discord and dispute led to the husband approaching the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai with a petition seeking divorce. That petition bearing No.A-1425 of 2015 was later on sought to be converted into a petition and a joint one. The relief was altered to that of a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  5. 5. Our attention has been invited to the Consent Terms tendered in the Family Court and the altered Consent Terms. Pages 77 to 84 of the paper-book have been perused by us carefully. One of the clauses in the Consent Terms postulates that the sum deposited in the account and mentioned in the Terms cannot be withdrawn by the complainant/wife unless she agrees to quashing of this criminal proceedings.
  6. 6. The nature of this settlement and which prima facie appears to us to be one sided, compelled us to call upon the Advocate appearing for the second respondent/complainant to request her to remain present.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  7. 7. She has remained present and has tendered an affidavit confirming the above arrangement.
  8. 8. She says that she is completely familiar and can speak and equally read and write in English language. She has perused the affidavit. That is drafted as per her instructions and reflects the position correctly.
  9. 9. Though she is not aware of the legal proceedings and provisions, we have sufficiently clarified to her that the affidavit being tendered on record and the prosecution being quashed on the ground that it is purely a private one arising out of a strained matrimonial relationship, then, she would have waived her rights which she has as wife and stated to be voluntarily. We called upon her and repeatedly, whether this arrangement and as reflected in the affidavit is arrived at willingly and her consent is free and unequivocal.
  10. 10. This query was raised by us especially because there are rights of a child, a minor son at the relevant time aged eight years. The custody of this minor son is handed over to the wife. The mother is now going to fend for herself in a City like Mumbai with only a sum of Rs.84 lakhs, that too deposited in the Bank account and as permanent alimony. The same is full and final settlement for all claims of the wife/mother including for permanent alimony. No separate amounts are provided for the child as well.
  11. 11. Upon our limited questioning, she says that she wants an end to all these proceedings and desires to resume her life with her son. She wants nothing more from the in-laws or the husband.
  12. 12. Once she repeatedly says that she is agreeable to the criminal prosecution being quashed and with the above understanding as well, then, we have no alternative but to quash this criminal prosecution which is a fall out of a dispute between the husband and wife, a direct impact after the complaint for domestic violence was lodged, the husband’s petition for Divorce. Then going by this settlement and which is confirmed, we allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
  13. 13. The consequence being not only the FIR is quashed but even the criminal case and charge-sheet which is filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  14. 14. However, since the complainant/wife says that in the interest of her child as also on account of her lack of faith, trust and love for the husband, the criminal prosecution should be quashed and she is ready for the same, in the event the Family Court’s jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is invoked for variation or modification of the Terms and particularly the clause for payment, our order passed today quashing the criminal prosecution shall not be an impediment for the Family Court to exercise its jurisdiction and in accordance with law. Clarifying thus, the petition is allowed.

 

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)


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


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


Hon JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA quashes #fake498a against NRI husband. Guj HC #498aQuash

In this case, wife files #498a case on her #NRI_Husband. Three incidents are alleged, one of which is on on Feb 2014 while the husband has left India on 04th june 2013 !! He seems to have taken employment and is living in Bahrain (Middle East). The Mother in law is projected as a cruel woman but the allegations against her are vague in nature.

The Hon Judge orders as follows “….I have no hesitation worth the name in quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case referred to above so far as the mother-in-law is concerned. As such, there are no allegations which constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever allegations have been levelled are quite vague and general. So far as the husband is concerned, I take notice of the fact that from June 2013 he is in Bahrain. It seems that he has taken up employment in Bahrain. As usual, it appears that the first informant could not adjust herself at her matrimonial home on account of the disputes which could be termed as mundane matters. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, are hereby quashed. …”

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

R/CR.MA/12027/2015 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12027 of 2015

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

PARESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL & 1….Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

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

Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NISHA THAKORE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 02/02/2017

ORAL ORDER

The respondent no.2 although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present either in person or through an advocate and oppose this application.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused nos.1 and 2 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicants before me are none other than the husband and the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 – first informant.

It appears from the materials on record that the respondent no.2 got married to the applicant no.1 on 10th December 2012. It is alleged in the FIR that the husband is addicted to liquor. The husband used to pick up quarrel on petty issues and harass the first informant.

In the FIR, there is a reference of three specific incidents. Let me start with the incident of 15th February 2013. It is alleged that on that day, the applicant no.1 came home heavily drunk and started beating the first informant. According to the first informant, she left the matrimonial home. While at her parental home, she realized that she had conceived. On 28th September 2013, the first informant gave birth to a baby girl at the Civil Hospital, Navsari. It is alleged that no one from the family of the husband came to inquire about the health of the first informant or to have a look at the new born baby. The third incident is dated 26th February 2014. It is alleged that on that particular day, the applicant no.1 called up the first informant on her mobile and told her that if she would get Rs.1 lac from her parents he would come on the next day and take her back to the matrimonial home. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

As usual, the mother-in-law has also been projected as a very cruel woman.

Mr.Bharda, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out. He submitted that the FIR is false for the simple reason that on 26th February 2014, the applicant no.1 was not in India and was in Bahrain (Middle East). The learned counsel pointed out that the applicant no.1 left India on 4th June 2013. This itself goes to show that the FIR was concocted by levelling false allegations. He submitted that there is no case worth the name so far as the mother-in-law is concerned.

On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Ms.Thakore, the learned APP appearing for the State. The learned APP would submit that the plain reading of the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The learned APP would submit that the police should be permitted to complete the investigation so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned. She pointed out that charge-sheet has been filed so far as the mother-in-law is concerned, and in the said charge-sheet, the applicant no.1 has been shown as an absconder. She prays that this application be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the FIR so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, should be quashed and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, should be quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

I have no hesitation worth the name in quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case referred to above so far as the mother-in-law is concerned. As such, there are no allegations which constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever allegations have been levelled are quite vague and general. So far as the husband is concerned, I take notice of the fact that from June 2013 he is in Bahrain. It seems that he has taken up employment in Bahrain. As usual, it appears that the first informant could not adjust herself at her matrimonial home on account of the disputes which could be termed as mundane matters.

In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

MOIN


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

 

SC quashs dowry case n ALL relatives EVEN after woman’s death. JUST gifts does NOT make them guilty

Even though the Andhra HC does NOT quash the 498a against parents, widowed sister and others, SC quashes the same !! All relatives roped in after wife’s death are finally freed at SC !!

“………..Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or abou the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption tha such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominio of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as t attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A noticed earlier, after marriage, Syamala Rani and first appellan were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect o ‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take int consideration the common practice that these articles are sen along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter o common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her i her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have bee residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that th dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to retur the same to Syamala Rani. Facts and circumstances of the cas and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibitio Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no sufficient ground fo proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6. Be it noted tha appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for th offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal proceedin under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6, in our view continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is.not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed……”


REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 201 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9344 of 2014)

BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS. ….Appellants
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P HYDERABAD, A.P. & ANR. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

  1. The present appeal assails the order date 23.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature a Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010, whereby th High Court declined to quash the proceedings against appellant No.1 to 6 in C.C. No. 532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Dowr Prohibition Act 1961 pending before Additional Judicial Firs Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram
  2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are a follows:- First appellant is working as an Engineer in G.E. Indi Technology Company at Bangalore. Appellants No.2 and 3 ar the parents, appellant No.4 is widowed sister and appellant No.5 and 6 are the sisters of appellant No.1. Marriage of firs appellant and Syamala Rani was performed at Vizianagaram o 04.05.2007 and after marriage, Syamala Rani was residing a Bangalore with her husband-appellant No.1. Syamala Rani die on 06.09.2008 under suspicious circumstances and a case wa registered in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B, 498 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act a H.A.L. Police Station, Bangalore City. On completion o investigation in the said case, chargesheet was filed against th appellants No.1 to 6 and the case was committed to Session Court vide committal order dated 29.12.2008 and was taken o file as S.C. No.79 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Session Judge, Bangalore. Second respondent-father of Syamala Ran filed a private complaint against the appellants under Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that he had paid dowr amount and other articles which were presented as dowry to th appellants on their demand and the same were not returned The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 6 o the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.532 of 2009.

  3. The appellants then preferred a petition unde Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash th complaint i.e. C.C.No.532 of 2009 contending that the complain does not disclose an offence and that FIR No.1492 of 2008 wa already registered against the appellants at Bangalore city. Th High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the petition file by the appellants holding that the offences alleged in th previous case in S.C.No.79 of 2009 emanating from the FI No.1492 of 2008 and the subsequent complaint in C.C.No.532 o 2009 are not one and the same as the previous case wa registered under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the subsequen case is registered under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac which is independent of the previous case. Being aggrieved, th appellants have preferred this appeal.

  4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that th Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complain as the previous case was already registered against th appellants in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B an 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac and the same is pending trial in Sessions Case No.79 of 2009 a Bangalore city and hence the subsequent complaint is no sustainable. It was further submitted that the subsequen complaint C.C.No.532 of 2009 emanates from the same cause o action and the allegations in the complaint do not constitute th alleged offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act an the complaint is an afterthought for wrecking vengeance on th appellants.

  5. Per contra, the learned counsel for responden No.2 submitted that the complaint case in C.C. No.532 of 200 under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent o the previous case i.e. FIR No.1492 of 2008 and the pendency o the said case before the Sessions Court, Bangalore shall no affect the complaint filed under Section 6 of the Dowr Prohibition Act. It was submitted that even after death o Syamala Rani, the appellants threatened the complainant an his family members and the complainant-respondent No.2 ha led several mediations with the appellant No.1 for return o dowry amount and other articles which were presented as dowr on demand made by the appellants and inspite of suc mediations, the appellants did not return the dowry amount an other articles and hence a prima facie case is made out agains the appellants and the High Court rightly declined to quash th proceedings.

  6. We have considered the rival contentions and peruse the impugned judgment and material available on record.

  7. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lays down tha where the dowry is received by any person other than the bride that person has to transfer the same to the woman in connectio with whose marriage it is given and if he fails to do so withi three months from the date of the marriage, he shall be punishe for violation of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section reads as under:-

    1. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.-(1
      Where any dowry is received by any person other than the
      woma in connection with whose marriage it is given, that
      person shal transfer it to the woman-

      (a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within
      [three months after the date of marriage; or

      (b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the
      marriage within [three months] after the date of its
      receipts; or

      (c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor,
      withi [three months] after she has attained the age of
      eighteen years and pending such transfer, shall hold it in
      trust for the benefit o the woman.

      [(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as
      required by subsectio (1) within the time limit specified
      therefore, [or as require by Sub-section (3),] he shall be
      punishable with imprisonment fo a term which shall not be
      less than six months, but which ma extend to two years or
      with fine [which shall not be less than fiv thousand
      rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with
      both.]

      (3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-
      section (1 dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman
      shall be entitled t claim it from the person holding it for
      the time being:

      [Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of
      he marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such
      propert shall,-

      (a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents;
      or

      (b) if she has children, be transferred to such children
      and pendin such transfer, be held in trust for such
      children.]

  • If the dowry amount or articles of married woman wa placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would b deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowr articles or the person who is dominion over the same, as pe Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the sam within three months after the date of marriage to the woman i connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, h will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section. The sectio further lays down that even after his conviction he must return th dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order 10. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr. (1985) 2 SC 370, this Court observed as follows:-

    “20. We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of
    th husband and wife living together does not entitle either
    of them t commit a breach of criminal law and if one does
    then he/she will b liable for all the consequences of such
    breach. Criminal law an matrimonial home are not strangers.
    Crimes committed i matrimonial home are as much punishable
    as anywhere else. In th case of stridhan property also, the
    title of which always remain with the wife though
    possession of the same may sometimes be wit the husband or
    other members of his family, if the husband or an other
    member of his family commits such an offence, they will b
    liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of
    trus under Sections 405 and 406 of the IPC.

    1. After all how could any reasonable person expect a
      newl married woman living in the same house and under the
      same roo to keep her personal property or belongings like
      jewellery, clothin etc., under her own lock and key, thus
      showing a spirit of distrus to the husband at the very
      behest. We are surprised how could th High Court permit the
      husband to cast his covetous eyes on th absolute and
      personal property of his wife merely because it is kep in
      his custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal farce.
      On th other hand, it seems to us that even if the personal
      property of th wife is jointly kept, it would be deemed to
      be expressly or impliedl kept in the custody of the husband
      and if he dishonestl misappropriates or refuses to return
      the same, he is certainly guilt of criminal breach of
      trust, and there can be no escape from thi legal
      consequence…..”
  • It is well-settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be sparingly exercised in rare cases. As has been laid dow by this Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692, tha when a prosecution at the initial stage was asked to be quashed the test to be applied by the Court was as to whether th uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima faci establish the offence. It was also for the Court to take int consideration any special feature which appears in a particula case to consider whether it was expedient and in the interest o justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This was so on th basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore, no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case als quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminar stage.
  • In the light of the well settled principles, it is to be see whether the allegations in the complaint in the present case an other materials accompanying the complaint disclose the offenc punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriag of first appellant and Syamala Rani was solemnized i Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and the couple was living i Bangalore. Appellants 2 to 6–the parents and sisters of appellan No.1 were living in Vizianagaram. It is the contention of th appellants that there are no allegations in the complaint that th ‘stridhana articles’ were given to appellants 2 to 6 and that the failed to return the same to Syamala Rani. In paras (3) and (4) o the complaint filed by the second respondent, it is alleged that h paid the dowry amount “to the accused and some ‘stridhan articles’ like double cot and other furniture and utensils required t set up a family”. In the complaint, it is vaguely alleged that eve after death of deceased-Syamala Rani, the accused starte threatening the complainant and that the accused offered to pay a amount of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement. Th relevant averments in the complaint in paragraphs (5) and (6) read as under:-

    “5. The complainant submits that even after the death o the
    deceased the accused by keeping the dead body on on side,
    started threatening the complainant and his famil members
    that if they give any report to the police, they wil be
    killed then and there only and they offered to pay a amount
    of Rs.10,000/- towards full and final settlement There the
    complainant, who was in deep shock at the deat of his
    daughter could not answer anything but gave report to the
    police.

    1. The complainant submits that he lead severa mediations
      with the accused through his colleagues, whos names are
      mentioned below for return of the dowry, but th accused did
      not return the amount and other amounts given under
      different heads. A duty cast upon the accuse to return
      those articles and amount, which were presente as dowry on
      demand made by the accused. The complainant reserves his
      right to file a fresh complaint against all the accused for
      return of the dowry. By reading of the above, it is seen
      that there are no specifi allegations against appellants 2
      to 6 that the dowry articles wer entrusted to them and that
      they have not returned the dowr amount and the articles to
      Syamala Rani. Equally, there are n allegations that those
      dowry articles were kept in Vizianagaram and used by
      appellants 2 to 6 who were separately living away from the
      couple in Bangalore. Even though complainant has alleged
      that the dowry amount was paid at the house of the accused
      a Gajapathinagaram, there are no specific allegations of
      entrustmen of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2
      to 6.
  • Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or abou the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption tha such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominio of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as t attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A noticed earlier, after marriage, Syamala Rani and first appellan were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect o ‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take int consideration the common practice that these articles are sen along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter o common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman i connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her i her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have bee residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that th dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to retur the same to Syamala Rani. Facts and circumstances of the cas and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibitio Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no sufficient ground fo proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6. Be it noted tha appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for th offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal proceedin under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6, in our view continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is.not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed.
  • The impugned order in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010 is set aside qua the appellants 2 to 6 and the appeal is partl allowed.

  • …………………….…CJI (T.S. THAKUR)

    ………………………….J (A.K. SIKRI)

    ..………………………..J (R. BANUMATHI)

    New Delhi;
    January 19, 2016