Tag Archives: NRI 498a quash

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

 

Woman settles 498a, divorces & remarries. Still Does NOT appear for quash. Guj HC quashes 498a

In a crisp and clear order, the Honourable Gujarat HC summarises the case thus “…a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The marriage was dissolved and the father-in-law and the mother-in-law came to be acquitted in the trial. I am told that the first informant has got married with another person and has settled in life. Perhaps, that is the reason she has chosen not to remain present before this Court…..
……. Since the settlement has been arrived at and the marriage was also dissolved and the other co-accused have also been acquitted by the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served …….”

498a 504 etc case quashed

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 4130 of 2015

**********************************************************
SOHAM BHARATBHAI BRAHMBHATT….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
C S SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SM SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR J.K. SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K. Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 – original first informant, although served with the notice issued by this Court, has chosen not to remain present and oppose this application either in person or through an advocate.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-husband seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report lodged with the Satellite Police Station, being C.R No. I-772/07 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC.

It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein is settled at Canada. The other co-accused named in the FIR i.e. the father-in-law and the mother- in-law were charge-sheeted and were put to trial. In the interregnum period, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The marriage was dissolved and the father-in-law and the mother-in-law came to be acquitted in the trial. I am told that the first informant has got married with another person and has settled in life. Perhaps, that is the reason she has chosen not to remain present before this Court.

Since the settlement has been arrived at and the marriage was also dissolved and the other co-accused have also been acquitted by the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the prosecution so far as the applicant is concerned</B>. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR No. I-772/07 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Mohandas

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

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

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

The Hon HC quashes the case against IN LAWS !!

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

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

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION

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

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

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

Gulf based NRI’s wife returns 2 India files 498A 506 cocktail Guj HC quashes case against ALL inlaws

A gulf Based NRI’s wife who goes abroad immediately after marriage & stays with him for three and half years at Saudi Arabia, returns to India and promptly files 498a on husband and four in laws !! Guj HC appreciates the facts, understand that she hardly stayed with in laws and has only vague allegations, quashes the case against ALL In-laws.

* Marriage on 24th May 2011 at Rajkot.
* Soon after marriage wife & husband left for Saudi Arabia & stayed at Saudi Arabia for almost three & a half years.
* On 4th October 2014, they came back to India. On December 2014, wife left matrimonial home & returned 2 parental home. On 3rd July 2015, she lodged FIR.
* In this quash, applicant #1 is father-in-law, application #2 mother-in- law, applicant #3 married sister-in-law & applicant #4 husband of sister-in-law !!
* She has hardly stayed for two months with the applicants, that too, only the applicant nos.1 and 2 after her return from Saudi Arabia.
* There is hardly any case of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Other allegations are quite vague and general.

So…..
* FIR bearing No.I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby ordered to be quashed

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION

(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 13276 of 2015

**********************************************************
KAMLESHBHAI SHANTILAL VAKHARIYA & 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR AR KADRI, ADVOCATE for MR PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

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

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the FIR bearing I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It appears from the materials on record that the applicant no.1 is the father-in-law, the application no.2 is the mother-in- law, the applicant no.3 is the married sister-in-law and the applicant no.4 is the husband of the sister-in-law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the original accused no.1 on 24th May 2011 at Rajkot. It appears that soon after the marriage, the first informant along with her husband left for Saudi Arabia. The first informant stayed at Saudi Arabia for a period of almost three and a half years. On 4th October 2014, they came back to India. In December 2014, she left her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home. On 3rd July 2015, she lodged the FIR.

In view of the above dates, it is very difficult for me to accept the submissions canvassed on behalf of the first informant that there was harassment at the end of the applicants. She has hardly stayed for two months with the applicants, that too, only the applicant nos.1 and 2 after her return from Saudi Arabia. She may be having some differences with the husband, but the husband is not before me. There is hardly any case of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The other allegations are quite vague and general.

In view of the above, this application is allowed. The First Information Report bearing No.I-CR No.38 of 2015 lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad, is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicants herein are concerned. The case shall proceed further in accordance with law so far as the husband is concerned. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)