Quashing of 307,498a cases in high court

I think Mr ashok is write .  my opinion as follows -

Two separate cases my be file in different cause cause of action . if complainant file 2 different case on same cause of action u first one will run another will be qush.

no there is no way to qush if mutual consent divorce is filed by both party

I think Mr ashok is write .  my opinion as follows -

Two separate cases my be file in different cause cause of action . if complainant file 2 different case on same cause of action u first one will run another will be qush.

no there is no way to qush if mutual consent divorce is filed by both party

I think Mr ashok is write .  my opinion as follows -

Two separate cases my be file in different cause cause of action . if complainant file 2 different case on same cause of action u first one will run another will be qush.

no there is no way to qush if mutual consent divorce is filed by both party

Dear All,

FYI, Both my cases were quashed by high court. The process followed was something similar to what Mr. Ashok explained (Private nature of the complaint). My wife did withdraw the complaint as part of mutual divorce compromise formula. I think it's a long way before we have a judicial system where false complaints are not entertained in the first place.

Regards,

SN Ray

IPC 307 may be applied to somebody, but it has to be proven in front of the Ld.Court. It is a very heavy section since it is trialled in the Court of Sessions. If applied without any proof, on the basis of assumption, then will not sustain in the Ld.Court. It will be assumed that the section have been wrongly charged on someone in order of personal grudge. Again on basis of 498A arrest can not be done without proper enquiry by police and on basis of sufficient reasons. Police may detain to interrogate. As you have mentioned the time period it is enough to do the necessary by the police. However if your inlaws insulted you in your residential premises then among the section of IPC 323, 341, 448, 504 the section of IPC 341 may not be proven by you in the court as the incident happened in your own premises. The police is partially empowered by the law to arrest in these section, so they may have not arrested. However the sections IPC 498A, 504, 506 will not be enough to prove you guilty so you were attached with Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Now instead of trying to quash this matter, please contest this suit properly under a guiance of a competent Ld.Advocate. Chances are there you may win the case and in this regard your wife will be proved wrong or fabricating charges on you. Now if you want to avoid all these problem settle a mutual understanding with your wife a file 13B under HMA. But before that you must make surethat the cases you are framed must be sorted in your favour. Else you will get the benefit of divorce over the verdict of 13B but be kept convicted and thus accused on the cases by the police that is the earlier cases you have mentioned. Take guidance and do it proper. You will be relieved. 

IPC 307 may be applied to somebody, but it has to be proven in front of the Ld.Court. It is a very heavy section since it is trialled in the Court of Sessions. If applied without any proof, on the basis of assumption, then will not sustain in the Ld.Court. It will be assumed that the section have been wrongly charged on someone in order of personal grudge. Again on basis of 498A arrest can not be done without proper enquiry by police and on basis of sufficient reasons. Police may detain to interrogate. As you have mentioned the time period it is enough to do the necessary by the police. However if your inlaws insulted you in your residential premises then among the section of IPC 323, 341, 448, 504 the section of IPC 341 may not be proven by you in the court as the incident happened in your own premises. The police is partially empowered by the law to arrest in these section, so they may have not arrested. However the sections IPC 498A, 504, 506 will not be enough to prove you guilty so you were attached with Section 3 and 4 of DP Act. Now instead of trying to quash this matter, please contest this suit properly under a guiance of a competent Ld.Advocate. Chances are there you may win the case and in this regard your wife will be proved wrong or fabricating charges on you. Now if you want to avoid all these problem settle a mutual understanding with your wife a file 13B under HMA. But before that you must make surethat the cases you are framed must be sorted in your favour. Else you will get the benefit of divorce over the verdict of 13B but be kept convicted and thus accused on the cases by the police that is the earlier cases you have mentioned. Take guidance and do it proper. You will be relieved. 

How to quash 498a??

These days its quite an easy tasks for women to register a FIR by attributing allegations of cruelty and a case is registered and thereby the husband and his family members has to go harassment and torture. Now one remedy is available for them which can relieve them from all the harassment and torture and that is quashing of FIR under 482 CrPC. But this remedy is generally very sparingly and rarely exercised by the courts. Generally allegations of cruelty are mentioned in the FIR and based on this FIR is lodged but sometimes police forgets that in the cases of 498a general allegations of cruelty does not stand, the allegation must qualify either of the two parts as envisaged in section 498a.

Here are some of the valid grounds.

Vague allegation-498a quashed

The case of 498a can be quashed when there are vague the allegations in the FIR. A FIR is a first document on which whole investigation and chargesheet is based.

A FIR is bible for getting evidence and eventually to secure conviction of an accused based on the evidence, therefore a FIR must contain all the material facts related to an offence. It also must contain all the specific ingredient needed for satisfying an offence and material through which investigation may proceed. if a FIR misses material facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC. Image result for 498a quash Some believe that if a FIR satisfies the ingredients of an offence it is not the case for being fit for quashing but this preposition is untrue under the light of the judgement In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings. A FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and satisfy the ingredients of an offence. It is held in Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya … vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 December 2015 It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

False allegations against relatives

Mukesh Rani V. State of Haryana, 2002 MLR 175=2002 (2) Cr.CC 123= 2002 (1) RCR (Cr) 163= 2002 (1) CC Cases (HC) 48 (Pb. & Har.)      

In the instant case respondent No.2 is the husband of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is the sister of husband of the complainant. In the FIR, it has not been specifically mentioned what dowry articles were entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 at the time of the marriage. If no article has been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3, then no case under section 406 is made out. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondents2 and 3 are residing with the husband of the complainant. The respondents have placed on record the documents showing that they are employed as teachers and are living separately in village Bamble from the complainant and her husband Satyadev. Even on the date when the alleged occurrence took place respondents were present in their school i.e. on 07.01.1994.

If on the face of the compliant it shows that complaint is false, charge should not be framed. In the instant case, there is evidence that respondent No.3 who is the sister of the husband of the complainant was living separate with her husband-respondent No.2 in a different village and were employed as teacher, the learned trial court has rightly discharged respondents 2 and 3.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below. Hence this petition is dismissed.

Quashing of false FIR against relatives is much easier

Delay in chargesheet/condonation

Delay in filing chargesheet by police is also a good ground followed by wife conduct in condoning the cruelty thru conduct.

By.

Adv Nitish Banka

Advocate Supreme Court

lexspeak.in

nitish@lexspeak.in