Tag Archives: abuse of process of law

A #criminal #case, an #abuse of #process of #law 2 implicate accused after 12 years, quashed by SC !

Husbands often seek good quash cases. While it is nice to have 498a quash cases, it is also necessary to understand how various courts approach a quash and how sometimes one has to go up to Apex court to get results

Here is a good case that discusses the facts of the complaint and also various cornerstone cases, before quashing a criminal case, an abuse of the process of law
////////////////17. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that none of the offences for which the appellants are summoned, is made out from the complaint and material on record. We further find that it is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in a criminal case after a period of twelve years of execution of registered sale deeds in question, who is neither party to the sale deeds nor a member of the Society. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and that of the courts below. Accordingly, the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the appellants in the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC, also stands quashed.//////////

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

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.953 OF 2015

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 330 of 2015)

Mr. Robert John D’Souza and others… Appellants

Versus

Mr. Stephen V. Gomes and another… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

  1. This appeal is directed against order dated 9.10.2014, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 658 of 2014 whereby said court has dismissed the petition, and declined to quash the Criminal Complaint case No. 357 of 2012, filed by respondent No. 1, against the appellants.
  2. Brief facts of the case are that a Society named – Mukka Welfare Society was constituted on 28.3.1970 for charitable work and social service, registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1970. Appellant No. 1, appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 3 were President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively, while appellant Nos. 4 to 7 were Directors of the Society. Other appellants are their relatives. A piece of land bearing S. No. 239/10 measuring 0.50 acres in Village Suratkal, Taluk Mangalore, was purchased by the Society vide registered sale deed dated 28.1.1978 from one Smt. Kaveri Hengsu. It is alleged by the complainant (respondent No. 1) that appellant Nos. 1 to 7, being members of the Executive and Directors of Mukka Welfare Society, misusing the position, held Board Meetings on 22.9.1995 and 13.10.1995 facilitating the sale of the above mentioned land in favour of their relatives (appellant Nos. 7 to 12). The sale deeds were executed on 16.2.1996. It is further stated that the purchasers (appellant Nos. 7 to 12), executed sale deeds in the same year in favour of the Directors of the Society. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent No.1 that the appellants have fraudulently usurped the property through the sale deeds mentioned above, and thereby committed cheating.

  3. The criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was registered by the 1 st Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, DK, who, after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), summoned the appellants vide order dated 13.4.2012 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 58 of 2012 before the Principal Sessions & District Judge of D.K. District at Mangalore, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.2.2013. Thereafter, the appellants filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court and the same was also dismissed. Hence this appeal through special leave.

  4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

  5. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the other authorities below are challenged before us mainly on the following grounds: – (i) Respondent No. 1/complainant is not a member of the “Mukka Welfare Society” nor is he in any manner connected with the affairs of the Society, as such he has no locus to file the criminal complaint. (ii) The sale deeds in question were executed in the year 1996, and the criminal complaint is filed malafide by respondent No. 1 after a period of fourteen years, in the year 2010, as such the courts below have erred in law in not taking note of said fact. (iii) The courts below have erred in law in not appreciating that the complaint in question was filed to get personal vendetta by respondent No. 1 against the Directors of the Society. (iv) The courts below further erred in not considering the fact that the complainant/respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a complaint, with same set of facts, before the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshin Kannada, Mangalore, and the same was sent to Police Station Suratkal for investigation, and the Circle Inspector, after investigation, did not find any offence to have been committed by the appellants, as the dispute was purely of civil in nature. (v) Ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC are not made out. (vi) None of the transactions of sale in question is against any bye-law or clause of Memorandum of Association of the Society.

  6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it has been stated that the complainant came to know of the transactions of sale, only in the year 2009, whereafter he complained before the Deputy Commissioner, D.K., as such the issue raised as to delay in filing the complaint is unfounded. It is further stated that the Mukka Welfare Society receives donations from various institutions and general public. The allegation of personal vendetta, pleaded in the appeal by the appellants, has been denied in the counter affidavit. Lastly, defending the orders passed by the courts below, it is stated that the courts below have committed no error of law.

  7. Arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the parties on the above lines pleaded before us. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties what is apparent in the present case is that the complainant is not the member of Mukka Welfare Society. It is also not disputed that the sale deeds in question were executed way back in the year 1996 and the complainant, who is not even member of the Society, raises the issue that the sale deeds were executed for the benefit of the Directors of the Society, after a long gap of more than twelve years. Sale deeds in question are registered, and not declared null and void by any court of law. It is also relevant to mention here that admittedly earlier a complaint was made by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2009, which was got investigated by the police and the result of the investigation was that no offence was found committed by the appellants on the ground that the dispute is of civil in nature.

  8. In view of the above facts, apparent on the record, we are of the view that the High Court and the courts below have committed grave error of law in ignoring the same. Needless to say that to constitute an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the essential ingredient is the “entrustment” of the property. The complaint filed by the complainant nowhere discloses that the land in question purchased in the year 1978 was entrusted to the Society for the benefit of others. It is only after entrustment is shown, it can be said that there was criminal breach of trust.

  9. In Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1, this Court, per majority, has explained “entrustment” in paragraph 363 as under: –“ The term “entrustment” is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general signification all it imports is the handing over possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietary right at all.”

  10. In State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal 2, this Court in paragraph 8 has observed that a mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment.

  11. At this stage we also think it proper to observe that in the present case, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC for which appellants are summoned, are also not made out. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, apart from entrustment, it is also essential requirement that it should be shown that the accused has acted in the capacity of a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. It is nowhere shown in the complaint that the appellants have acted in any of the above capacities.

  12. As far as offence of cheating is concerned, the same is defined in Section 415 IPC, for which the punishment is provided under Section 420 IPC. Section 415 reads as under:-“ 415. Cheating. – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation. – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations……………”

  13. From the above language of the Section, one of the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating is deception, but in the present case, from the contents of the complaint it nowhere reflects that the complainant was deceived or he or anyone else was induced to deliver the property by deception. What was done, was so reflected in the resolutions, and sale deeds.

  14. In Mathavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others 3, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the law as to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC as follows:-“ 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 is 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.”

  15. In Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and another 4, criminal prosecution was quashed by the Court in respect offence of cheating noticing that the complaint was filed after a lapse of ten years.

  16. In Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others 5, this Court in paragraphs 25 and 46 has observed as under: –“ 25. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP (1964 AC 1254) Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys (1977 AC 1) stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court’s power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved. xxx xxx xxx 46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.”

  17. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that none of the offences for which the appellants are summoned, is made out from the complaint and material on record. We further find that it is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in a criminal case after a period of twelve years of execution of registered sale deeds in question, who is neither party to the sale deeds nor a member of the Society. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and that of the courts below. Accordingly, the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the appellants in the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 1, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC, also stands quashed.

………………

……………..J. [Dipak Misra]

……………………………..J. [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi;

July 21, 2015.

1 (2003) 3 SCC 641

2 AIR 1968 SC 700

3 (1988) 1 SCC 692

4 (2005) 3 SCC 670

5 (2007) 12 SCC 1

Wife files DV once 498a stayed ! Guj HC finds out the abuse of process of law !

Wife file DV case after 498a is stayed by Hon HC of Gujarat ! HC understands the motive and orders “…From the above uncontroverted facts, a prima facie case is made out showing abuse of process in initiating the domestic violence proceedings…” and stays lower court proceedings

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4435 of 2015
GAURAV BABULAL THAKOR & 4….Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR BP GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 – 5
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 19/06/2015
ORAL ORDER

Draft amendment tendered today is granted to replace and substitute paragraph 10(A) and the prayer clause in paragraph 10 of the petition. The same shall be carried out immediately.

2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to quash the proceedings of Case No. 85 of 2014 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, by respondent No.2-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Learned advocate Mr. B. P. Gupta for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings initiated are abuse of process of law and factuated with in order to harass the petitioners. In that regard, it was submitted that the husband and wife have been staying separately since 2010. A complaint under Section 498A was filed by the wife in April 2014. The same was subjected to a proceedings before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 4247 of 2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court has stayed the proceedings pursuant to the said complaint by order dated 08.01.2015. The complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed thereafter.

4. Though served with the notice of this Court, none appears for the respondents.

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

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)

chandrashekhar

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

A Husband is arrested and Jailed for one and half years as a result of a 498a complaint. The Hon Patna HC is shocked !!. The HC clearly mentions the misuse in it’s order

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39340 of 2014

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1334 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-PATNA

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

Md. Quasim @ Md. Kashim @ Md. Quasim Ansari, son of Md. Nabi Alam,

resident of village Phauladipur, PS Shakurabad, District Jehanabad…. ….   Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar…. …. Opposite Party

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s           :       Mr. Uday Narayan Singh

For the Opposite Party/s         :   Mr. Rita Verma, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORAL ORDER

2 16-01-2015

This case indeed discloses the extent to which the provision of Section 498A, IPC has been misused and as to how the legal system was unkind to the petitioner.

On a complaint submitted against the petitioner by his wife, the police registered a case under Section 498A, IPC. He was arrested on 13.6.2013. The petitioner moved BP No. 81 of 2014 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur which was rejected on 28.5.2014. Therefore, this application.

Heard Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rita Verma, learned APP.

http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

For the past and one and-a-half years the petitioner is in prison. Even if he is held to be guilty of the offence alleged against him, the sentence cannot be that much.

This application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1334 c of 2012.

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)

mrl U

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

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

Reckless Malafide FIR falsely implicating inlaws vexatiously& maliciously to blackmail &grab property

Classic case on FIR quash

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

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-18643 of 2008

Date of Decision:- 21.2.2012

Smt.Sunita Goyal & Ors.                                           …Petitioners

                                   Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.                                            …Respondents

CORAM:       HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present:-        Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Palwinder Singh, Senior DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Petitioners Smt.Sunita Goyal, Vijay Goyal, unfortunate parents-in- law and Abhishek Goyal, brother-in-law (Devar) of complainant Soni Goyal, wife of Mahavir Goyal respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), have directed the instant petition for quashing the impugned FIR, bearing No.246 dated 15.9.2007 (Annexure P5), registered against them, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 and 120- B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.

2. Concisely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Mahavir Goyal (husband non-accused) in the month of September, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. The father of the complainant was stated to have given a Maruti Zen Car, jewellery, weighing 80 Tolas, cash and dowry beyond his capacity at the time of her marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the (given) dowry articles. They started harassing, maltreating her and demanded more dowry articles. It was claimed that although the cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given, but her in-laws kept on harassing her. She and her husband also apprehend danger to their lives at the hands of the petitioners. On 30.8.2007 at 8 A.M., they were stated to have given severe and merciless beatings to the complainant and her husband Mahavir Goyal. The matter was reported to the police, where DDR No.12 dated 31.8.2007 was entered, but no action was taken by the police against them.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners have harassed, treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry and gave severe beatings to her as well as to her husband on 30.8.2007. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR (Annexure P5) in the manner indicated hereinabove.

4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and preferred the instant petition, for quashing the FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC inter-alia on the grounds (i) that the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) has been registered ostensibly on the complaint of Soni Goyal in furtherance to the oblique motive of aforesaid Mahavir Goyal, Soni Goyal and Chuhar Lal Garg by misusing the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A of I.P.C. The impugned FIR was got registered as a counter-blast and in retaliation to the aforesaid complaint dated 30.08.2007 (Annexure P1) lodged by petitioner no.2 with P.S. Division No.5, Ludhiana under Section 384 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. against Mahavir Goyal, Soni Goyal and Chuhar Lal Goyal and also as a counter-blast to the disassociation and de-linking of Mahavir Goyal by petitioner no.2 from their property and the filing of the civil suit (Annexure P4) by petitioner no.1 against Mahavir Goyal and Soni Goyal; (ii) the criminal case was lodged by the complainant with the sole intention to pressurize and blackmail them to transfer their property in the name of her husband Mahavir Goyal; (iii) the allegations in the FIR are absolutely concocted, false, frivolous and evince the element of malafide, after thought and maliciously & vexatiously registered against the petitioners in order to wreak vengeance and the incident of 30.8.2007 and story of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- were concocted by the complainant party; (iv) the complainant has concealed the fact that the Zen car has already been transferred in the name of Soni Goyal (complainant) on 22.4.2008, as per the transfer report/documents (Annexure P9 colly); (v) the dowry articles given at the time of marriage have already been given to the complainant, vide letter (Annexure P10). She did not make any grievance against the petitioners during five years after her marriage. As soon as, petitioner No.2 refused to part and disowned the husband of the complainant from his property, then she filed the false criminal case against them in order to take the revenge and no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the criminal prosecution against them, as depicted hereinbefore.

5. The complainant-respondent No.2 did not file any reply to deny the specific personal allegations contained in the petition. However, the DSP Crime filed the reply on behalf of State of Punjab (respondent No.1), taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. According to the prosecution that as per the inquiry report (Annexure R1/T) and during the course of investigation, both the parties were called and the complainant’s father-in-law agreed to give the share of Rs.25 lacs from his property to Mahavir Goyal, husband of the complainant, out of which, Rs.10 lacs were already taken by him (husband) and the remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. Consequently, the complainant and her husband agreed to shift to residential HIG Flat No.11-FF, opposite Khalsa College, Ludhiana, as per report (Annexure P13). Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the State of Punjab has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR (Annexure P5). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that it has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of learned counsel that since there are direct allegations of cruelty, maltreatment and harassment to the complainant by the petitioners, so, no ground for quashing the criminal prosecution against them is made out, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M.Sharan 2008(4) S.C.C. 471, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein a criminal case was registered against the then Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and other senior officials for entering into conspiracy with Dharmbir Khattar and others to give undue favour to M/s DLF Universal Limited, New Delhi in the matter of allowing 300 Floor Area Ratio (FRA) in respect of one of the projects of DLF Universal by charging rates much below the prevailing rates and obtained or agreed to obtain illegal gratification from M/s DLF as quid pro quo. The total bribe amount was 1.10 crores. During the course of investigation and subsequent search conducted at the residence of son of one of the accused A.M.Sharan, who was at that time, Commissioner (Land Disposal, DDA), certain papers/documents relating to assets acquired/expenses incurred by him and his family members besides the cash amount of Rs.36 lacs were recovered and seized by the CBI. The CBI collected sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence constituting the grave offences. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that “where there are direct allegations and evidence to support the criminal offence, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR/charge sheet while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.”

8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the complainant in the present controversy, particularly when the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Dhariwal Tobaco Products Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009(2) SCC 370; M/s Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998(5) SCC 749; Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H.Chanchani 1998(7) SCC 698 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava (2006)7 SCC 188 has ruled that “whenever the High Court comes to the conclusion that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of court and that, the ends of justice require that the proceedings should be quashed, it would not hesitate to do so, in exercise of inherent powers irrespective of other factors.”

9. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners deserves to be quashed or not under the present set of circumstances?

10. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative and the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue in this respect.

11. As is evident from the record, that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Mahavir Goyal (husband non-accused) in the month of September, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. The father of the complainant was stated to have given a Maruti Zen Car, jewellery,weighing 80 Tolas, cash and dowry beyond his capacity at the time of her marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the (given) dowry articles. They started harassing, maltreating her and demanded more dowry articles. Although the cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given, but her in-laws kept on harassing her. She is working as a teacher in National College, Dakhan. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are her parents-in-law, whereas petitioner No.3 is her brother-in-law (Devar). She has not intentionally arrayed her husband Mahavir Goyal in a dowry related case in the array of the accused. According to the petitioners that on 30.8.2007, Mahavir Goyal and his wife (complainant) created nuisance in the house, broke the crockery & centre table and threatened the petitioners that in case the half share of the property and the money were not given to them, they would falsely implicate them in some false criminal case. Petitioner No.2 objected to it, then his son Mahavir Goyal, husband of the complainant, slapped him (his father petitioner No.2). The matter was reported to the police by petitioner No.2, through the medium of complaint of same date (Annexure P1). So much so, he disowned his son Mahavir Goyal from his whole movable and immovable properties and published the notice dated 1.9.2007 (Annexure P2) in Hindustan Times, Chandigarh in this connection. At the same time, in order to avoid the possibility of false implication, Sunita Goyal (petitioner No.1) wrote a UPC letter dated 3.9.2007 (Annexure P3 colly), asking her daughter-in-law (complainant) to take all the dowry articles and her other belongings. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

12. Not only that, petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the complainant and her husband Mahavir Goyal from interfering in the peaceful possession of their residential house, by way of plaint (Annexure P4 colly). Admittedly, in civil suit, bearing No.206 dated 13.9.2007 filed by petitioner No.1, counsel for the complainant and her husband (defendants therein) suffered a separate statement that they shall not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and they have no objection in case her (petitioner No.1) suit is decreed to that extent. In this manner, on the basis of statements of the parties, the suit of petitioner No.1 was decreed and the complainant and her husband were restrained from interfering in her possession over the suit property, vide order dated 28.7.2010 (copy taken on record as Annexure P14).

13. It is not a matter of dispute that neither the complainant nor her husband made any complaint, raising any accusing finger towards the petitioners at any point of time before lodging the FIR (Annexure P5) nor made any such averment/statement during the course of pendency of the civil suit between them. Therefore, the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioners have been falsely implicated to pressurize and blackmail them to transfer the property and the complainant has lodged the false criminal case against them (intentionally excluding her husband in dowry related matter) vexatiously and maliciously in order to wreak vengeance, have considerable force.

14. The matter did not rest there. Even as per the FIR (Annexure P5), the father of the complainant gave a Maruti Zen Car and gold jewellery, weighing 80 Tolas besides cash. It was also alleged that the petitioners demanded more dowry articles and her father gave Rs.2,50,000/- in cash to them. That means, very very vague allegations of demand of dowry and payment of indicated amount are assigned to the petitioners. Above-all, the mere fact that the complainant did not name her husband as accused that the dowry articles were entrusted to him at the time of marriage or he has also demanded the more dowry articles, is indicative of the fact that she colluded with her husband and lodged a false complaint, on the basis of which, the FIR (Annexure P5) was registered against the petitioners without any material/evidence muchless cogent in this behalf.

15. Moreover, the indicated Zen car has already been transferred in the name of complainant, by means of transfer of ownership report/documents (Annexure P9 colly). The petitioners have specifically mentioned in their petition that whatever dowry articles were given at the time of marriage of complainant, have already been given to her, vide Annexure P10 (colly). That is the only reason that the complainant intentionally did not file any reply to controvert all these vital personal aspects of the matter contained in the main petition, for the reasons best known to her. In this manner, no overt act or specific role, except one minor incident of 30.8.2007, which appear to have been concocted after the complaint (Annexure P1) of petitioner No.2 and notice (Annexure P2), are attributed to the petitioners. It is very highly impossible to believe that the petitioners would treat the complainant with cruelty or demand the dowry articles from her in the absence of her husband. She appears to have intentionally colluded with her husband in order to grab the property in this regard as discussed hereinabove.

16. It is now well settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioners to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the same or they further demanded any dowry articles and evidence in support thereof. All other relatives of the husband cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry, especially when in this case, the husband of the complainant is not an accused. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences related to demand of dowry. As all the essential ingredients to constitute the offences and complicity of petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to me, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them.

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

18. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in cases Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 565; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 686 and the judgment dated 17.1.2012 rendered in case Ritu Khurana and another v. Brij Lal Chopra CRM No.M-8227 of 2010; wherein it was held that “the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband, things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of section 498-A IPC.”

19. Sequelly, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioners as discussed hereinabove, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners vexatiously and maliciously, to put pressure and to blackmail them, to grab the property, in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide against them. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. Such malafide prosecution if allowed to continue, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners and is nothing else, but sheer and deep misuse/abuse of process of criminal law in this relevant connection, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, the contrary submissions of learned counsel for complainant “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the indicated Bench mark and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” are applicable to the facts of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, seen from any angle, to my mind, no offences whatsoever are made out against the petitioners, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

20. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

21. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them.

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

21.2.2012

AS

Compendium of FALSE 498A cases condemned by Courts

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A PIL is filed in 2005 seeking courts order “….to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC’) to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations…..”

The Honourable court opines “..…The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry meance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery….

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Quoting the Hon Apex court :
“…30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. …”
xxxx
“…32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations….”
xxxx
“….34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society……”

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Jarkhand HC quash where HC clearly states that

case has been filed with vengeance against the petitioners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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