SC CITATION ON 498 A IPC

As per your query it is understood that you need information regarding some case where relatives are also added in the case of 498a.

PREETI GUPTA & ANR. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2010)

FACTS

The complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar in the year 2006. In 2007, she alleged her husband and her husband’s relatives for demanding dowry and assaulting her physically. Thereafter, a complaint was filed under Section 498A and others of IPC.

The present appeal is filed by Preeti Gupta, the married sister-in-law and her husband against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.

JUDGEMENT

The Court observed that the tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Hence, the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

In the present case, the allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court directed to quash all the charges filed against the appellants as the same could not be proved.

BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. V. MONICA (2014)

FACTS

Monica married Vikas Sharma (son of appellants), who had two children from his first wife. After their marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife deteriorated and Monica left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against her husband and other appellants (father-in-law and mother-in-law) under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC. Monica also claimed maintenance of 2 lakhs per month in addition to the interim maintenance.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court observed that all the essential elements required for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC were not fulfilled in the present case. The respondent took all coercive steps to ensure the presence of appellants in India without making any effort at conciliation. The court was of the view that merely because the mother-in-law kicked the daughter-in-law and threatened her with divorce, the same did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. Thus, no case was made out against the appellants under Section 498A of IPC.

ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR (2014)

FACTS

The wife alleged that her in-laws demanded 8 lakh Rupees, a Maruti car, an air-conditioner etc. from her family. When her husband got to know about these demands, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It was also alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

Denying these allegations, the husband filed an appeal for anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT

The Court observed that since Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, women often use it as a weapon rather than a shield to harass her husband and his relatives. Sometimes, even the bedridden grandparents of the husband, their relatives living abroad are brought under this provision on false allegations. The Court laid down certain guidelines stating that arrest under this section must be made after reaching reasonable satisfaction and after conducting a proper investigation as to the genuineness of allegation. The Magistrate shall not order detention casually and mechanically. The Court, therefore, granted provisional bail to the accused.

Hope it helps!

Regards,

Anusha Singh

Yes. You can watch supreme court judgements through this link.

https://www.supremecourtcases.com/

▼

Supreme Court Cases - Supreme Court Case Law