1) In Ravinder Haribhau Karamkar V/s Shaila Ravinder Karamkar, 1992, Cr. L.J. 1845 (Bombay) – in this reference case, it was held that during the pendency of a filed regular civil court petition under Section 24 of HMA, wife also simultaneously filed a parallel petition under 125 Cr.P.C. of the Code. It was held that the petitioner wife could not be allowed to ride two different horses at the time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different courts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings under section 125 Cr. P.C. when she has already chosen the alternative remedy by filing first a regular civil court suit for maintenance. It is well established that the judgment of the civil court shall prevail over the judgment of the criminal court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different courts.
(2) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.
(3) In Aleamma Mathew Vs C.M. Mathew, 2004, Case No. 80/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that bare reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that a person who is able to maintain onself is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitione no. 1 is employed in the private establishment and is earning about Rs. 9000/- per month. Since petitioner no. 1 is able to maintain herself, she is not entitled to the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
(4) In Namita Rani Bose V/s Dipak Kumar Bose, 1982 (2) H.L.R. 58 (AII.) – it was observed that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” means unable to earn a livelihood. This obviously means that the earning is such that the wife can maintain herself without depending upon others. But merely because she is earns a paltry sum by engaging herself in some profession, which may not even be sufficient to give one meal a day, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself with the income she earns. The income should be such which is sufficient for an ordinary person to be maintained out of it.
(5) In Zubedai V/s Abdul Khader, 1978 Cr. L. J. 1460 (Bombay) – it states that, Karnataka High Court has taken a contrary view in case of Zubedai holding the petitioner must positively aver in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and he has neglected to maintain her.
(6) In Kavita Vs. Gurdit Singh,2005, Case No. 76/03,Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioners have to furnish evidence to show that the respondent is actually running several business. Thus the petitioners have not able to prove an essential requirement of the provision.
(7) In Geeta Vs Rakesh, 2005, Case No. 703/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has been unable to show that she is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient cause or that the respondent has refused to maintain her.
(8) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.
(9) In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.
(10) In Neeta Vs Vijay Kumar, 2005, Case No. 259/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that based on submissions of the petitioners the petitioners have failed to prove their averments, having not led any evidence in support of their case.
(11) In Kiran Vs Amar Singh, 2005, Case No. 52/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to reside with her husband. She has also not been able to assign any cause, much less a sufficient cause for not wanting to stay together at the matrimonial house. The respondent on the other hand, is willing to keep and maintain her. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of having neglected or refused to keep and maintain the petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1 left the society of the respondent and refused to join his company, she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance allowance.
S. 24 HMA citations.>>
(1) (Dr. N. G. Dastane Vs. Sucheta Dastane)> (AIR 1975, SC 1574 = 1975 (3) SCR 967 DMC 1981 (1) 293)> > It states as: What standard of proof requires to prove “Cruelty”?> In case of Dastane Vs. Dastane, the Supreme Court held that, the normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities, he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved.> > Section 23 of H.M. Act confers on the court the power to pass a decree if it is “satisfied” on matters mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) of the Section. Considering that proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the work “satisfied” must mean “satisfied on preponderance of probabilities” and not “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt”. Section 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases.> > “Condonation” means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute Condonation, there must be two things: Forgiveness and Restoration.> > Sex plays on important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lead to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment. Where, therefore there is evidence showing that the spouses led a normal s*xual life even after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse then that is clear proof of Condonation of cruelty by the other spouse.> > Further, held that intercourse, of course, is not a necessary ingredient of Condonation because there may be evidence otherwise to show that the offending spouse has been forgiven and has been received back into the position previously occupied in the home. But, intercourse in circumstances as obtain here would raise a strong inference of Condonation with its dual requirement, forgiveness and restoration.> > Held, that where Condonation is not pleaded as a defence by the respondent, it is the duty of the court to find out whether the cruelty was condoned by the petitioner in view of the provisions of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the H.M. Act, which casts an obligation on the court to consider the question of Condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended cases.
(2) (Kamini Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta) AIR.1985 Del 241 = 1985 C.C.C 165 D M C 1985 (1)P 136> > It states as: Wife making unfounded allegations with an intention to hurt her husband – As to womanizer, drunkard etc., Husband entitled to a decree of divorce on ground of wife’s mental cruelty.> > The parties were married on 6-6-1971. On 19-6-78 they separated and have since then been living apart. There are four daughters of the marriage. They are in the custody of the husband. The husband filed the petition for divorce in June 1979 on the ground of cruelty alleging that at a meeting held on 3-7-78 in the presence of the parties relations when negotiations for the resettlement of the parties were a foot, the wife last her temper and started abusing him and called him a heavy drunkard. She complained in the meeting that the husband has been bringing girls in the matrimonial home. As a result of the imputations and accusations, the talks of reconciliation broke down. Thus, was the husband’s positive case in the petition.> > In her written statement the wife replied that she never falsely accused the character of petitioner’s suggesting there by that the charges leveled against the husband were not false.> > When the case came for trial, the wife in her evidence repeated these charges times out of number. She named three girls namely – Rupa, Mamta and Alka Sayal, with whom the husband had extra-marital relations. About Rupa, the wife said that she was a cabaret. When the parents of husband were away to Simla, one night the husband brought Rupa to the house and started drinking with her. The wife was present. Afterwards, the husband wanted to “indulge in s*x” with Rupa. This the wife could not stand. So in utter disgust, she withdrew herself from the room the husband and Rupa were stayed for the whole night, she says.> > About Mamta, the wife said that Mamta ill-reputed girl, worked in the husband’s office in kamlanagar, and she said that she have seen Mamta herself when she came to our house.> > About Alka, the wife narrated that the husband had married and she was pregnant from him.> > The trial judge disbelieved the evidence of wife.> > It is observed that the husband’s father was at the relevant time an Additional District judge in Delhi, just opposite the husband’s father’s flat was the flat of their near relations. In this environment, it seems most unlikely that the husband will bring a cabaret dancer to the flat who will stay through out the night in the house in wife’s presence. The case of husband’s s*xual relationship with Mamta and Alka equally remained unproved. There is no cogent evidence on record that the husband was a philanderer or that he was flirting with girls or dangling after women.> > Found that the charges of immorality leveled by the wife are reckless in the extreme and entirely baseless.> > Held, that any man with reasonable self-respect and power of endurance will find difficult to live with a taunting wife when such taunts are in fact insults and indignities Human nature being what it is, a reasonable man’s reaction to the conduct of the offending spouse is the test.> > Held that the court can not accede to her request to allow her to withdraw her allegations against the husband, as it will not do any good to their matrimonial relations.
(3) (Urmila Devi & other Vs. Ravi Prakash)> (DMC 1984 (II), P.339, DEL HC.)> > It states as: Wife baselessly and falsely alleging the husband as “Drunkard, gambler & womaniser” – Amounts to cruelty.> > Parties married o 18-11-71 at Meerut and one daughter Neelam and son Neeraj born. The husband was daily traveling by train to attend his duties at Delhi.> > Husband alleged that she has never bothered to take care of the female child nor she ever tried to meet her and she has ruined the life of the husband and the minor children. In her notice, she made allegations against him and his character by saying that he was a drunkard, gambler and characterless. These allegations caused mental pain and agony in his mind which amounts to cruelty; again she repeated these same allegations in her written statement.> > > Held that, unfounded and false allegations by wife against her husband in her notice, maintenance application and in her written statement that the husband is drunkard, gambler and womanizer are the acts amounted to cruelty and as such having made such allegations, it cannot be said that she was not committing the act of cruelty to the extent required by law to be harmful and injurious for the husband.> > Further, held that – one act of cruelty is enough to dissolve the marriage and persistence is not required.
(4) (Sushil Kumar Verma Vs. Vsha)> AIR. 1987 (Del)86 = D.M.C. 1986 (2), 25, Del H.C.)=1986> AIR C.C. 890 1986 Marr L.J. 375=1986 (2) HDR. 104=1987> Mat L.R. 93.> > It states as: Wife terminated pregnancy without consent of the husband.> > The parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 23-11-1980 at Delhi. The wife is stated to have left the husband on 15-2-1981.> > The husband asserted that the wife is guilty of cruelty as she has taken steps to take the medicine and entered a Nursing Home for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.> > The husband has deposed that he had not given his consent to the wife for the termination of her pregnancy.> > From the above facts it is quite apparent that she had got pregnant after having married the appellant husband; that she did not want this child and so she had the pregnancy terminated.> > Held, that aborting the fetus in the very first pregnancy by a deliberate act, without the consent of the husband, would amount to cruelty.> > It is already held in case reported as Deepak Kumar Arora V. Sampuran Arora, 1 (1983) D.M.C. 182; “If however, a wife undergoes abortion with a view to spite the husband, the it may, in certain circumstances, be contended that the act of getting herself aborted has resulted in a cruelty.
(5) (Manorama Vs. Karna Singh)> (D.M.C. 1983 (1) 366 (P&H)> > It states as: Wife adopted continuous disrespectful attitude towards husband and his family members – she even not attending funeral of father-in-law – Wife held guilty of mental cruelty – Divorce decreed.> > The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25th April, 1969 and out of that wedlock, a son was borned in the year 1972.> > Allegations of the husband were that the treatment of the wife towards him has been cruel in as much as, she always adopted disrespectful attitude and misbehavior towards him. She used foul filthy and abusive language towards him in the presence of his parents and other persons. She also did not pursue her domestic affairs and during all this time she used to pick up quarrels with her in laws without any reason or cause. Her behavior and attitude has always been injurious to his health and welfare. The conduct of the wife, according to the husband amount to cruelty affecting his mental peace making him unable to perform his official duty properly, and this caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband that living with her would be mental torture. Even the wife did not come to condole the death of his father who had died on 9-9-1979. Consequently, the husband filed the divorce petition on 24-9-79.> > The wife denied all the allegations of her bad conduct and cruelty towards her husband his parents, as alleged. According to her, the real bone of contention is that the husband is in the habit of taking liquor and she used to request him to give up this habit, but he used to take it ill and rebuke her.> > Held, that her conduct has been blame worthy to such an extent that she even did not attend the funeral ceremony of her father-in-law. This certainly hurt the feelings and sentiments of her husband and it appears that on that account the present petition for divorce was filed immediately within a month thereto.> > Observed that Law does not require that at the first appearance of a cruel act. The other spouse must leave the matrimonial home lest the continued cohabitation be construed as Condonation.> > Mere fact that the spouse continued to share a common home during or for some time after the spell of cruelty is not sufficient to prove Condonation… as held in Dr. N.G. Dastane’s case.
(6) (Usha Vs. Vimal Kumar)> (D.M.C. 1987 (1), P.164, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife scuffled with the husband – Slapped him – she living separately and doing service & refused to come back – Her improper behavior with him.> > Parties married in 1974 and they resided together at Manasa. Thereafter, she has been residing away from her husband’s home and is in service.> > Husband filed divorce suit on the ground that in 1975, he had occasion to meet her and had then directed her to accompany him, she had refused to do so and had engaged herself in marpit (scuffle) with him and had also slapped him, and had also threatened him to kill. Her behavior with him and with the persons of his family was not proper. She used to disobey his mother and she has subjected her to unbecoming behavior. She deserted him.> > Observed, that in 1977, she without seeking her husband’s approval had been to Bhopal for training and thereafter is in service. All this is clearly indicative of the fact that at a very early stage she had taken a decision to live away from the conjugal home. Further, if the husband, from the very inception had any motive of divorcing her and of remarrying he could have instituted suit much earlier. He instituted the suit in 1983 when he found that there is no possibility of her returning to home.> > Held that, the words “treated with cruelty” imply harsh conduct of a certain intensity and persistence, which would make it almost impossible to operate the marriage.> > Legislature has left it to the courts to determine on the facts of each case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty and while deciding case, under this provision, courts would keep in mind the principle that relief is granted not only to protect a spouse from physical injury, but also from danger to mental health.
(7) (Saroj Vs. Dashrath)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 277, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife indifferent to household duties – often go to her parents house – quarrels with husband – Got search warrant through her parent on false allegations – Caused humiliation to the husband.> > The parties were married on 10-5-1987, and they lived as husband and wife at Indore, where her parents also live. A child named Meeraj was born to them. Thereafter, the relations became strained. The wife who has been employed as a Teacher even from before the marriage, became indifferent to the household needs and would not cook the meals and would return to her parent’s house which is also in Indore. On opposition by the husband, the wife used to quarrel with the husband. During the continuance of such strained relations her parents made an application u/s 100 of Cr.P.C. for issuing a search warrant for her production before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The police searched her out from the husband’s house when he was out and produced before the S.D.M. who put her in rescue home and from there; she was set to liberty to her parent’s house. In that proceeding, all sorts of false allegations and charges were leveled against the husband. After recording her statement, the learned S.D.M. did not find that her confinement was wrongful. However, since she wanted to keep herself away, from the husband, the aforesaid order was passed. That proceeding resulted in humiliation and mental agony.> > Held, that the wife made false accusation against the husband in the proceeding before the S.D.M. for issue of search warrant. The allegations were found to be false. In such a situation, one cannot escape concluding that the husband must have suffered lot of humiliations followed by mental agony, amounting to cruelty. The decree for divorce is therefore confirmed.>
(8) (Prakashchandra Vs. Radharani)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 376, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife insisting the husband to provide money for her parents – Husband failing – Beating the child – Quarrelling – Falsely alleging demand of dowry by husband.> > The parties are residents of Indore and were married on 19-4-1980 according to Hindu rites. As a result of their wedlock, they have also a son. The appellant-husband alleged that the wife always treated him with cruelty. She used to insist on sparing money for payment to her parents and on refusal always quarreled with him. She expressed her annoyance by indiscriminate beating of the child. On account of her quarrelsome habit, he, on his transfer from Bhopal to Indore was forced to live separate from his parents. She however, continued pressing demands for money for her parents and on his refusal as before, she picked up quarrel with him and finally deserted him o 25-09-1981, after throwing the child at his mother. After about an hour, she came back with their parents and uncle and forcibly took away the child.> > Observed the falsity of her defince that the husband used to demand dowry of Rs. 1000 and a gold chain is exposed by the fact that she had to admit that she never mentioned about the alleged demand in any of the letters sent by her to her father. This court is legitimately entitled to draw an adverse inference by non-production of those letters and non examination of her father, though alive and available.> > Held, that she treated the husband with cruelty and she has not been able to substantiate her defence story. The husband has discharged his part of the burden that she treated him with cruelty and deserted him for more than statutory period of two years. Since, she did not justify her separate residence; the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce on both grounds viz. cruelty and desertion.
(9) (Kuldip Kaur Vs. Premsingh)> (DMC 1986 (2), 334, P&H.)> > It States as: Wife left the matrimonial house without any justification – was of un-accomadative nature – not willing to do domestic works.> > Briefly, the fact are that the parties were married on March 9th, 1980, according to Hindu rites at Bhawarigarh, Dist. Sangrur. The petitioner-husband was a Clerk in the Punjab and Sind bank at Samana, while the wife was a teacher in Govt. Girls School, Sector 21, Chandigarh.> > It is averred by the husband that the wife was of an unaccommodating nature and was not willing to do domestic work. He, therefore, had to cook meals to avoid confrontation. A son was born to the wife out of the wedlock on 25-8-1981. The husband called his mother for looking after the child, but the wife started misbehaving and picking up quarrels with her on one excuse or other. On 20-2-1982, she left his house and went to reside at her brother’s house. In spite of his efforts, no compromise could be arrived at between the parties.> > Evidence with corrobation by witnesses came on record supporting the contentions of the husband.> > Held, that the wife has to share the burdens of the husband. According to our culture and heritage, it is considered to be the duty of the lady not only to look after her husband and the children, but also to look after her in-laws.> > Further, held that the wife should not have left the house of the husband on that ground.> ———-
(10) (Rajni Vs. Ashok)> (D.M.C. 1978 (1), P. 286, M.P. High Court)> > It states as: Wife causing mental tension to husband by her conduct and by her improper development of mind – Held, mental cruelty to husband.> > After marriage on 20-5-1985, the petitioner wife lived with the husband for about a month and thereafter she is living away from him. During this period the evidence on the side of the husband came on record that her conduct was not that of a person of sound mind. His version is that the resides in the upper storey of a building and the bathroom in half naked condition for the upper storey. When asked for prepare three thalis, she placed six on the table, she falsely accused one of his guest of theft of an egg etc., which evidence is supported by other witnesses.> Even the trial judge observed that according to her she has not singe the written statement, she does not know what is meant by guests, she does not know why marriage is performed and what is the relationship between the husband and wife, she does not know what is s*xual intercourse she does not know with whom she used to sleep etc., her evidence clearly `proves’ that the case is not one of mere dullness of intellect but goes beyond that.> > Observed that, she is suffering from mental disorder, and the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.> > In this instant case, it is held that the wife can be said to have treated the husband with cruelty, despite her disabled mind, within the meaning of S. 13(1)(ia).> > Observed that for legal cruelty for matrimonial cause, it is not necessary that physical violence must be proved. Ordinarily treating a person with cruelty implies an intentional or willful conduct, studied neglect and indifference or calculated and conscious behavior occasioning pain to the person concerned.> > But, also already held that `cruelty’ as a matrimonial offence may be found without there being the element of intention, as in case of `insanity’ – (Jia Lal Abrol’s case – (AIR 1978 J & K, 67)> ———— –>>
(11) 1995 (II) DMC 444> 1995 (II) HLR 97 Meena Rani Vs. Madanlal> (Punjab & Haryana) Justice: Gharjavani> > It states as: Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Husband’s divorce case on ground of cruelty and desertion – wife left matrimonial home without any reasonable ground – she was employed but not accounting for her salary to the husband nor disclosing where she used to spend it-staying away with her parents of and on without informing her husband – Refused to live with husband and rather the wife and her mother pressing him to live at the house of her mother as Gharjavani. Held all these acts amounts to cruelty – Trial Court rightly granted divorce in favour of husband – Appeal of wife also dismissed.> ———— –>>
(12) 1987 (1) DMC 259> AIR 1988 Delhi page 37,> 1987 Marr. LJ 217 (1987) (I) HLR 354> Hem Chandra Misra Vs. Smt. Satyh Misra> > It states as: Sec. 13 (1)(ia)(ib) – Cruelty – wife living apart for 3 years – Husband making several efforts but she refused to came back – wife abusing towards her husband in presence of other members of the house – Her conduct amounts to cruelty.
IPC 406:
1.
Harmeet Singh Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 494, 506 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(1) C.C.Cases 229 (HC)
Misappropriation of Istridhan / cruelty / bigamy – FIR under – Quashing of, on plea that offence u/s 494 IPC being not made out from any evidence and allegations on other counts are without any basis – Territorial jurisdiction of the Court – Held – U/s 181(4) Cr.P.C., Court of place where marriage was solemnized can entertain complaint and adjudicate on the matter – Trial Court to decide as to whether allegations made in complaint are baseless or not – High Court not to usurp the jurisdiction of Trial Court in quashing proceedings – Petition dismissed.
2.
Gurmukh Singh and others Versus Davinder Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Readiness to return dowry articles – Inference
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 213
Criminal breach or trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint under – Accused ready to return whatever dowry articles were given to him – It implies that accused received dowry articles – Correctness of the allegation as to how much dowry was given is a matter of evidence required to be examined by the Court below – Held – Proceedings not liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
3.
Gurdip Singh Versus Daljit Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) C.C.Cases 290 (HC)
Dowry case – Complaint against husband and his parents – Summoning order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of summoning order – Preliminary evidence of complaint and witnesses before issuing summoning order to husband and his parents recorded – Held – No ground to quash summoning order – Petition dismissed.
4.
Gurmej Kaur Versus Balbir Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of summoning order, Omission in complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1988
Citation(s) : 1988 C.C.Cases 579 (HC)
Criminal breach of trust – Petitioner sought quashing of summoning order issued against him on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent wife – Complaint not mentioning whether the dowry articles were specifically entrusted to petitioner – Held – It could not be proved that petitioner was present at time of giving dowry and performance of marriage – Proceedings be quashed – Petition allowed.
5.
Giani Harjit Singh Versus Paramjit Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.K.Kapoor
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband, Stay of criminal proceedings, Power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : III(1995) CCR 546, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 580
Dowry articles – Misappropriation of – Wife filed complaint – Husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband’’s brother and his wife implicated – Summon order – Validity of – Husband filed petition u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act which was pending in Civil Court – Complaint by wife challenged as counter-blast to divorce petition – All accused had joint residence & mess – Complaint had specific allegations as to which articles were entrusted to each accused – Various articles of dowry were entrusted to each of them as per list attached with complaint – Held – Case u/s 406 IPC prima facie made out – No illegality in issuing summoning order – Entrustment of Istridhan and other articles to accused, not subject matter of adjudication before Civil Court – No ground to stay or quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C does not have jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of allegations – Petition dismissed.
6.
Harpal Singh Versus Mukhtiar Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Nullity of marriage, Complaint by father of wife – Maintainability, Bar on power of Court to take cognizance of matrimonial offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420, 506 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 188
Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint – Husband pleaded nullity of his marriage on ground of earlier marriage of his wife and said previous husband was still alive, and therefore question of Istridhan cannot arise – Held – Plea cannot be accepted if necessary ingredients for the offence u/s 406 IPC are fulfilled – Further held that u/s 198 Cr.P.C., it is not always required that aggrieved spouse should file complaint and complaint filed by the father of bride is maintainable – Sec. 198 Cr.P.C. put a bar on power of Court to take cognizance of matrimonial offences which figure in Chapter XX of IPC, unless aggrieved spouse files complaint for the same.
7.
Harminder Singh and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of FIR, Entrustment, Arrangement in divorce proceedings – Inference
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 120-B Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : I(1992) CCR 878
FIR for offences under – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the same – Divorce petition pending, during which, parties reached to an arrangement, in pursuance to which, dowry articles were entrusted to one ”X” – No mention in complaint as to whom dowry articles were returned after divorce petition was dismissed – Held – In absence of allegation that ”X” entrusted dowry articles to husband, no charge of criminal breach of trust can be levelled against husband – Proceedings quashed, except for charge u/s 498-A IPC.
8.
Bhagwan Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Acts of cruelty, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 64
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint against husband, and his relatives – Complaint alleging specific allegations of entrustment – Prima facie case u/s 406 established – Accused contending that they lived separately – Held – Trial Court to go into the truth of allegations made in the complaint – Bride alleging that the act of extreme cruelty made her to think of suicide – Cruelty established.
9.
Binoy Kumar Mukherjee and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.Y.Eqbal
Patna High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 307, 323, 386, 406 Year(s) : 2000
Citation(s) : 2000(1) Crimes 477
Cruelty – Attempt to murder – Criminal breach of trust – Voluntary hurt – Extortion – Petition for quashing proceedings – Husband/petitioner filing a divorce suit – Wife filing criminal case – Prior to this, petitioner was sending Rs. 1, 000/-p.m., and had increased it to Rs. 1, 800/-p.m.for son’’s maintenance and education – Apart from this, wife also received Rs. 3 lakhs in compromise in the Matrimonial Court – Held – FIR not mentioning strong enough charges to make a prima facie case – If proceedings continue, it shall amount to the abuse of process of Court – Petition allowed.
10.
Gurdev Singh Versus Nachhattar Kaur @ Mandip Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Customary gifts at the time of marriage, Quashing of complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(3) Crimes 179, 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 328
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Parents of bride gave customary gifts to the in-laws of bride at the time of marriage – No question of entrustment of any article given to the accused at the time of marriage within the said provision of IPC – Whether the criminal breach of trust arise? [No] – Held – No offence u/s 406 IPC made out – Complaint quashed.
11.
Harjinder Kaur Versus Nachhattar Singh and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.S.Nehra
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Omission in complaint, Ingredient of offence, Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 692
Sec. 4, 6 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife made complaint that accused did not return back her dowry articles even when she demanded for the same – However, dishonest misappropriation of said dowry articles by the accused was not alleged in complaint – Held – No offence u/s 405 PC made out – Requisite ingredient for offence u/s 405 IPC is dishonest intention – Misappropriation simplicitor is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 405 IPC – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
12.
Gurdeep Singh and others Versus Ginni
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Compounding of non compoundable offence, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 349, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 186 (Supp.)
Offence complained of being non-compoundable in nature – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and proceedings against him u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as matter stands compromised between parties – Held – Proceedings initiated against the accused would not achieve desired result as complainant could not support allegations contained therein, in view of compromise settled between them – In these circumstances pendency and investigation of the case would amount to a futile exercise and unnecessary harassment to the accused – FIR and proceedings against the accused quashed.
13.
Himmat Ram and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise, Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 482, 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) C.C.Cases 265 (HC), 1992 JCC 59
Inherent power – Exercise of, on account of mutual compromise – Both parties have settled their all disputes – Dissolution of marriage by divorce by mutual consent under HMA and the wife had been paid Rs. 45,000/- as lump sum and nothing else remains – Held – Proceedings u/s 498-A & 406 IPC pending against petitioner stands quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.
14.
Gurbax Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Non return of dowry articles to parents of deceased bride, Civil dispute, Quashing of complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 338, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 455 (Supp.)
Return of dowry articles – Girl alleged to have been poisoned to death by in-laws – Criminal case against in-laws for breach of trust for non return of dowry articles to the parents of girl – Whether maintainable? [No] – Held – It is for the Civil Court to decide as to who were the legal heirs of deceased to inherit her property – Criminal proceedings set aside.
15.
Gurmukh and others Versus Bhupinder Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 323, 363, 406, 420, 506, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) Crimes 380
Complaint – Summoning order – Petition by accused praying for quashing of complaint and consequent proceedings – Complaint contained no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to any petitioners, other than main petitioner (husband) – Due to strained relations, complainant tried to drag close relatives of her husband – Held – Complaint and summoning order liable to be quashed.
16.
Harpal Singh Versus Gurnam Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Sudhalkar
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Dowry demand after marriage, Delay in filing complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 405 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 534
Wife made demand of dowry articles, which was not met – Demand was made after 19 years of marriage – Complaint – Magistrate issued summoning order against accused – Plea taken by accused that it is unbelievable that articles must be lying with accused for 19 years – Accused seeking quashing of proceedings on account of delay – Held – Contention rejected – There can not be a general principle as to after how much time the complaint can not lie and delay in every case is to be looked from fact of each case – Petition dismissed.
17.
Hira Lal and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband, Denial by wife to take her Istridhan
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 85
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filed complaint – Husband and all his relatives implicated in complaint – Held – Only husband is liable for rendering account to wife with respect to the dowry articles – Accused-husband would not be absolved of giving articles to his wife, on her demand, solely on ground that at one point of time, wife did not agree to take her Istridhan articles back – Proceedings qua relatives of husband, set aside.
18.
Gyanchand and others Versus Thawardas
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.S.Ratnaparkhi
Bombay High Court
Subject(s) : Criminal breach of trust by daughter-in-law, Absolute ownership of ornaments
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(1) Crimes 153
Offence under – Complaint against daughter-in-law and her brother and father regarding criminal breach of trust – Process issued by the Trial Court against accused – Allegations against the daughter-in-law that she left the matrimonial house along with ornaments the part of which was given to them by their father-in-law at the time of marriage and a part thereafter – Held – Accused persons could not be treated as trustees as they would be absolute owners as per law – Process issued against the accused quashed.
19.
Gurmeet Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 354 , 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 89
Criminal complaint by wife alleging misappropriation of dowry articles – Specific allegations in complainant regarding entrustment of different dowry articles to close relatives of husband – Complaint also included allegations that some dowry articles were entrusted to wife of husband’’s brother who were living separately – Allegations on face of it seems to be false – Held – Complaint against the petitioners quashed.
20.
Hukami Devi and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Rathor
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Delay in FIR, Limitation, Taking ornaments of bride by deception – Not cruelty, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 357 , 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 357
Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – FIR – List of dowry articles which were alleged to be misappropriated given with FIR – No specific allegation as to which of the accused was entrusted with what articles – Not mentioned in FIR as to what harm was caused to bride when chillies were allegedly put in her eyes and who commited such act – Also, no mention of time, date of torturous action made in complaint – Allegations were found vague to make out an offence either u/s 498-A IPC or u/s 406 IPC – Also, FIR for offence u/s 498-A IPC filed after 3 years of illegal demand of property from bride, is barred u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. – Held – Allegation that accused persons used deception to take away ornaments from complainant-bride would not amount to cruelty within ambit of Sec. 498-A IPC – FIR quashed – Petition allowed.
21.
Dwarka Nath Kundra and others Versus Moti Lal Bhatia and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1988
Citation(s) : 1988-91 C.C.Cases 25 (Supp.), 1991 JCC 445
Criminal proceedings by wife against husband – Sec.482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of proceedings – Marriage between the parties dissolved by a divorce decree under Hindu Marriage Act – Custody of minor child allowed with the mother – Respondents unwilling to carry on with the complaint – Dispute already settled between parties – No need of proceedings to continue – Would be an abuse of the process of the Court – Held – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
22.
Dr. Yog Dhayan Banga and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise in divorce petition, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 506 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 190
FIR by wife for offences under – Husband and in-laws implicated – Also, wife filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – In proceedings for divorce, compromise between parties – Whether compromise can be a ground to quash criminal proceedings, particularly when nowhere in the compromise it was mentioned that the wife nullified the act of cruelty committed by the accused persons? [No] – Held – Petition dismissed.
23.
Diwan Chand and others Versus Raj Rani
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) C.C.Cases 519 (HC)
Misappropriation – Of dowry articles – Complaint made after 8 years of marriage – It is possible that husband has taken charge of such articles – General allegations regarding entrustment made in respect to husband and parents-in-law, and not specific entrustments – Allegations against parents-in-law not proved – Held – Complaint and summons order against the parents-in-law quashed.
24.
Hakam Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Dowry and Istridhan – Distinction, Entrustment of dowry articles to minors, Continuing offence, Limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989 C.C.Cases 484 (HC)
Dowry & Istridhan – Distinction – Dowry implies the presents given to bridal couple and others in connection with the marriage whereas Istridhan is only confined to property given to or meant for the bride – Normally the elder people of the family and not the minors or persons who do not have any connection with the family, are entrusted with the items of dowry and istridhan – Held – Thus, as the complaint in case in hand does not particularly specify entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioners, complaint and consequent proceedings against the minors quashed – Whether offence u/s 406 IPC is continuing one? – Application of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. to said offence – Discussed – Continuing offence – What? – Explained.
25.
Feroza Mahboob Versus Qamar Ali and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Gulab C.Gupta
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of discharge order
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406 Year(s) : 1987
Citation(s) : 1987(3) Crimes 846
Wife filed a complaint against her husband u/s 405, 406 IPC for failing to return the ornaments, clothes etc. received by wife from her parents at the time of marriage which were delivered to the husband but were not returned to her at the time of divorce – Held – Magistrate cannot discharge the husband as prima facie case against him for criminal breach of trust had been made out – Impugned order quashed.
26.
Harbans Lal and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Cheating and criminal breach of trust – Distinction, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 494, 495, 420, 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 385, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 130 (HC)
Offence u/s 420, 406, 498-A, 494, 495 IPC – Petitioners, in-laws of respondent, charged with said offences in a complaint – Complaint has been against husband, father and mother-in-law, two sister-in-laws and their husband – Petition for quashment of proceedings and FIR – High Court held that FIR and complaint liable to be set aside – Respondent has made no specific allegations of maltreatment against the petitioners – No specific entrustment of stridhan articles against them – Further, cheating and criminal breach of trust are two difference offences and cannot coexist without specific allegations of entrustment of articles – The allegations made against petitioner are baseless and vague – FIR and complaint quashed – Petition allowed.
27.
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Juneja and others Versus Aruna Kumari
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 95, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 573 (HC)
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Wife filed complaint wherein, apart from husband and his mother, 10 close relatives of husband were also implicated – Marriage between parties was solemnized at Pathankot – Dowry articles allegedly entrusted at Ludhiana – Thus, it is unbelievable that the said relatives would come to Ludhiana to take dowry articles – Also, such relations used to reside separately from the husband and in-laws – Allegations that the relatives of the husband used to beat the complainant were found to be vague – Effect of – Held – Complaint filed with an oblique motive – Complaint and consequent proceedings qua relatives of husband except husband and his mother quashed.
28.
Harjeet Singh Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1994
Citation(s) : 1994(1) Crimes 501
Criminal breach of trust / Cruelty – FIR – Petition seeking quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings – Dissolution of marriage between parties by divorce in pursuance of compromise between them – Dowry articles had been given to respondent-wife – She gave affidavit expressing her desire not to persue the criminal case – Case is not likely to result in conviction – Held – Proceedings and FIR quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.
29.
Dr. Krishan Kumar Versus Sunil
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Second complaint – Maintainability, Quashing of summoning order, Suppression of material facts
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 506 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 8
Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint – Second on the issue and facts similar to the first one – Fact of dismissal of earlier complaint on ground of default on part of complainant to appear, not disclosed in second complaint – No exceptional circumstances mentioned which could justify the filing of second complaint – Held – Second complaint, a gross abuse of process of Court – Complaint, order for summons and proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
30.
Faqir Chand and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Dowry demand, Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 404 Year(s) : 1994
Citation(s) : 1994(3) C.C.Cases 23 (HC)
Offence under – Father of deceased daughter complained against husband and father-in-law regarding alleged demand of dowry and maltreatment – Dowry items retained by in-laws – During pendency of proceedings, mutual settlement arrived at between the parties as the claim of complainant was satisfied between parties, leading to the quashing of proceedings.
31.
Harbans Lal Versus Rama Rani
Hon’ble Justice(s) : B.S.Nehra
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of inquiry order, Absence of specific allegation, Vague allegations, False implication
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 682
Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC r/w Sec. 340 IPC – Petitioners, parents-in-law of respondent, charged with said offence in an complaint – Complaint was related to maltreatment, cruelty and return of stridhan – However, Magistrate has refused to issue process against them – Husband was entrusted to return the articles – However, ASJ ordered Magistrate to institute inquiry against the petitioners - Petition for quashment of order of ASJ – High Court held that in absence of specific allegations regarding maltreatment and entrustment of stridhan against petitioners, no inquiry can be made against them – Such persons cannot be arraigned in such proceedings – Respondent in the instant case is trying to implicate petitioners by baseless and vague allegations – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed.
32.
Devender Kumar Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.K.Singh
Rajasthan High Court
Subject(s) : Desertion by husband, Cruelty
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : III(1997) CCR 24
Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Husband deserting wife – Whether amounts to cruelty? [No] – Meaning of “cruelty” – Varying types of cruelty do not always come under the ambit of Sec.498A – Held – Office not established – “Cruelty” under explanation to Sec. 498-A IPC – Meaning – Discussed.
33.
Chander Prakash @ Chander Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : P.K.Bahri
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Appreciation of evidence – Acquittal
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 300, 302, 34, 120-B, 406 Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : 1995 CRI. L. J. 3028, 1995(2) C.C.Cases 429 (HC), II(1995) CCR 322 (DB), 1995 JCC 665
Husband killed by wife with the help of co-accused – Reason for killing that wife was illicit relation with co-accused – Case diary tempered by the IO by inserting some pages – Where statement of child witness not recorded promptly – And vital improvements in testimony – Possibilities of witness being tutored cannot be overlooked – Held – It is not safe to place reliance on such testimony unless corroborated by any other evidence – Set aside the order of Trial Court – Conviction not maintainable – Appeal allowed.
34.
Chandra Parkash and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Usha Mehra
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing, Cruelty and demand of dowry not mentioned in divorce petition – No effect in criminal case
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1996
Citation(s) : 1996 CRI. L. J. 3443, 1996(2) C.C.Cases 344 (HC)
Petition filed u/s 482 of the code for quashing the complaint on the grounds that the details of the demand of dowry and cruelty were not made in divorce petition filed by the complainant was not tenable as truthfulness regarding the complaints cannot be entertained by invoking inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the code – No merits – Held – Petition dismissed.
35.
Dhan Raj Thapar and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Ujagar Singh
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise, Payment to wife for withdrawal of case, Quashing of summoning order
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(2) C.C.Cases 346 (HC)
Wife / petitioner-3 claimed maintenance from husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Husband filing suit against wife for divorce – Both withdrawing cases after compromise – Husband to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to wife in lieu of dowry articles through petitioner-1 – Draft delivered to wife by petitioner-1 after she surrendered her right in mutual consented divorce case – Divorce decree obtained afterwards – Husband claiming being cheated, as divorce decree should have been obtained before the payment – Held, no cheating done – Draft paid according to the terms of compromise – Corroborated in joint petition for divorce by mutual consent – Sec.482 Cr.P.C.- Complaint and order for summons quashed – Petition allowed.
36.
Bishamber Lal Suneja and others Versus Sunita Rani
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989 C.C.Cases 88 (HC)
Criminal breach of trust – Complaint u/s 4, 6 Dowry Act – Dismissed – Second complaint u/s 406 IPC on similar facts – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings – Allegations regarding entrustment of specific dowry articles to specific accused not made – Also it was not mentioned as to how accused persons had misappropriated the same – Effect of – Held – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
37.
Charanjit Singh Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.S.Agarwal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Dowry demand
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1996
Citation(s) : 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 233
Territorial jurisdiction – Marriage took place at Jalandhar, where dowry articles were also given – Parents of bride reside at Panipat – Accused made demand for dowry at Panipat after the marriage and insisted that only after being paid Rs. 4 lacs, they would take bride to matrimonial house – Registration of FIR u/s 498-A, 406 IPC at Panipat – Whether Court at Panipat has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? – Yes, as cause of action partly arose at Panipat.
38.
Darshan Lal and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Abuse of process of Court, Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 405 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) Crimes 77, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 373 (HC)
FIR filed by wife u/s 406 IPC alleging retention of her dowry articles – Quashing of – Petitioners, except the husband were involved in litigation just to wreck vengeance – Allegations qua them were vague – However, allegations were specifically made against the husband whose case is distinguishable from the other petitioners – Held – Dragging of relations of husband into the prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law – FIR qua petitioners except husband quashed – Petition partly allowed.
39.
Desh Ram Pal Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Usha Mehra
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Limitation, Entrustment
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993 JCC 50
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filed complaint against husband alleging retention of her dowry articles lying with husband – Petitioner for quashing complaint on ground of limitation – For last 15 years, wife is at her parental house – Demanding return of her dowry articles from the husband / petitioner to which husband denied – Instant complaint – Whether time barred complaint? [No] – Held – Although entrustment made 15 years ago, but limitation effective from the date of demand and subsequent refusal by opposite party – Complaint, as made on 2.3.1992, not barred by limitation – Complaint maintainable
40.
Champa Rani and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Difference between Complaint case and a case institution on police report, Direction to register the case – Validity
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(2) C.C.Cases 307 (HC)
Case registered on direction of Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. on the complaint filed by the complaint before the court – Basic distinction between complaint case and a case institution on a police report – Held – Judiciary should not transgress police jurisdiction and make orders – This creates a bad precedent – Complaint and the proceedings based upon quashed – Petition allowed.
41.
Col. Shamsher Singh Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Nijjar
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Compounding of offence, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 2001
Citation(s) : 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 234
Compounding of offence u/s 320 Cr.P.C. – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR lodged u/s 406, 498-A IPC was quashed by the High Court in view of compromise reached between the parties.
42.
Harinder Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : K.S.Gupta
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Violation of condition of settlement in civil suit, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1999
Citation(s) : IV(1999) CCR 33
Misappropriation of Istridhan / cruelty – Dissolution of marriage between petitioner-1 and respondent-2 by way of settlement – Conditions of settlement mentioned in joint statement of the parties – Despite that, petitioner-1 was vigorously pursuing the guardianship petition filed by him, before Guardianship Judge – Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR not on plea that no prima facie offence is being made out from allegations made in FIR, but on premises that respondent-2 had given undertaking in terms of settlement, not to proceed further and to aid in its withdrawal – Held – Unless petitioner-1 complies with obligation on their part by withdrawing guardianship petition, they cannot rely on statement given by respodent-2 in criminal proceedings and claim the relief – No ground to quash criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed.
43.
Bal Kishan and others Versus Poonam Verma
Hon’ble Justice(s) : I.S.Tiwana
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Juvenile, Entrustment
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406 Year(s) : 1987
Citation(s) : 1987(1) RCR (Criminal) 657 , 1987 C.C.Cases 429 (HC)
Wife filing complaint against her husband and other relations for offence u/s 406, 405 IPC alleging that the accused persons turned her out of from the house and refused to return her dowry articles – Summons order issued – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summons order and consequent proceedings – Wife did not made any allegations of entrustment of dowry articles – Most of the petitioners were minor on alleged date to incident – Effect of – Held – Complaint and consequent proceedings amounts to misuse of process of Court – Quashed against petitioners except qua husband – Petition allowed.
44.
Bagh Singh and others Versus State of and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406, 109 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) Crimes 83
Offences under – FIR – Petition u/s 482 of the Code to quash FIR and consequent proceedings – Territorial jurisdiction – Offence u/s 498-A IPC committed in District Ropar – Thus, it is not within the competent jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala to investigate and try the accused for offence u/s 498-A IPC – Also, offence u/s 406 IPC was not made out as there was no specific allegation of entrustment of articles to any of the accused – Held – FIR and proceedings flowing therefrom quashed – Petition allowed.
45.
Bairo Prasad and others Versus Laxmibai Pateria
Hon’ble Justice(s) : B.M.Lal
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subject(s) : Limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991 CRI. L. J. 2535
Complaint for offence u/s 406 IPC – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Case u/s 406 IPC prima faciely made out – Limitations for taking cognizance – Held – Where complainant viz. daughter-in-law alleged that her in-laws did not pay heed to her repeated demands for return of her istridhan, Sec. 472 Cr.P.C. and not Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. would apply for taking of cognizance of offence.
46.
Bawa Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 20, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 403 (Supp.)
Sec. 406 / 498-A IPC – Acts of cruelty committed at matrimonial home at Gurdaspur – Wife thereafter stayed with her parents at Ambala – No jurisdiction vested in Ambala court for offence u/s 498-A – Details of articles entrusted to individual petitioners not given – Fact that complainant stayed with husband for a period of four years show that complaint may be confined to husband alone – Held – Proceedings against in-laws except the husband quashed.
47.
Adarsh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.S.Brar
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, FIR – Reliability, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 667, II(1992) CCR 1265
FIR under by wife against entire family of husband-accused for misappropriation of stridhan – Allegations neither appealing to common sense nor seem probable – Vague – Held – FIR as regards sister, brother and brother’’s wife quashed as before groom’’s parents they are not supposed to accept dowry – FIR – Value of – In such cases usually estranged wife can even go to extent of implicating as many relatives as possible – No rule that averments made in FIR to be taken as gospel truth.
48.
Bhupinder Kaur Verses S. Ajaib Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.M.Tandon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Ingredient of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1982
Citation(s) : 1982 C.C.Cases 26 (HC)
Criminal breach of trust – Complaint by husband against wife and her parents – For misappropriation of ornaments given by the husband – Petition for quashing of complaint – Held – Articles given at the time of marriage to the wife become her own – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.
49.
Deepak Sharma Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Omission to use words entustment / demand – Effect, Duty of police to recover / return dowry items, Cruelty – Meaning
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1988
Citation(s) : 1988-91 C.C.Cases 116 (Supp.)
Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – What? – “Cruelty” includes unlawful demand of property – Does not include ”entrustment” or ”demand” – FIR includes complaint regarding demand of money and, failure to fulfill the demand resulting in her beating and attempt to strangulation – Not allowing to collect her clothes and forbidding her to enter house for ever, constitutes criminal breach of trust even when specific words ”entrustment” and ”demand” were not used – Recovery and return of dowry items not forming part of legal obligation by the police, but a part of investigation – Such articles if unclaimed by husband or any other relative of husband furnish proof that certain items of dowry which were recovered were given at the time of marriage – Held – Plea that purpose of filing the complaint is merely to recover the item of dowry is not tenable and the real purpose of complaint being to punish the guilty under the law – Definition of ”Cruelty” – Discussed – Petition dismissed.
50.
Bimla Devi and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Incomplete complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406, 420 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 470, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 211 (HC)
Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Maintenance application against husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C.- No requirement of mention of allegations in the application – Complaint not specific as to which articles given as gifts to parents in-law – However, theses form part of the property in her matrimonial home – Held – Normal practice to give away gifts to the relatives of bridegroom – Immaterial whether they were living separately – Complaint against the in-laws not specifying which gifts marked for which person on the bridegroom’’s side – Allegations not found to be fabricated or a result of afterthought – Offence u/s 406 established.
51.
Bachan Singh Versus Harpreet Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : P.K.Jain
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Alternate remedy
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1996
Citation(s) : 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 806, III(1996) CCR 338
Complaint for offences u/s 406, 498-A IPC filed against husband and relatives – Magistrate issued summons order – Petition u/s 482 of Code for quashing complaint on plea of vagueness of allegations in complaint – Held – Direction to petitioner to approach Magistrate for seeking relief – High Court should be reluctant to invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code as more efficacious alternate remedy is available to petitioners before Magistrate – Petition dismissed.
52.
Bhupinder Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR, Ingredient of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) Crimes 84, 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 225
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – FIR lodged - Peition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR – Proceedings u/s Sec.12 Hindu Marriage Act – Cruelty allegedly caused at Yamunanagar – Territorial jurisdiction – Police officers at Lalru having no jurisdiction to investigate the case – Dowry articles entrusted to the main petitioner (husband) under doubt – Held – Impugned FIR quashable – Criminal breach of trust not established.
53.
Balbir Singh Versus Harpreet Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.B.Garg
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Documentary evidence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 26
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint institute by respondent for offence u/s 405, 406 498-A and quashing of order passed by CJM – Held – The mere fact that the CJM did not send the complainant to the police for inquiry though it was desired by complainant, would not render the impugned order as anticipatory bail was void ab initio inasmuch as the CJM recorded the statement of the complainant and also statement of father of complainant and together with the documentary evidence whatever it was he pass the impugned order – Allegation against member of families were vague so complaint against them quashed – Complaint against petitioner no 2 to 6 is hereby quashed – Petition partly allowed.
54.
Ashok Kumar Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compounding of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991 JCC 406, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 541 (HC)
Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint by wife against husband – Mutual divorce on intervention of relations – Parties agreed for dropping of criminal proceedings – Complainant having settled in life after remarriage and does not desire to proceed further with the complaint in terms of compromise – Held – Proceedings quashed in the interest of justice.
55.
Abdul Salam Versus A.C.J.M
Hon’ble Justice(s) : O.P.Jain
Allahabad High Court
Subject(s) : Simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : 1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 730, II(1995) CCR 545
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filing Civil suit to get dowry articles – Complainant u/s 406 IPC filed in between – Whether civil and criminal proceedings can go simultaneous? [Yes] – Criminal complaint u/s 406 IPC not barred for reason of civil suit on same matter.
56.
Beant Kaur Versus Mukand Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : K.K.Srivastava
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Breach of terms of mutual divorce
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420 Year(s) : 1998
Citation(s) : 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 306
Offence under – Sec. 13B of Hindu Marriage Act – Parties got divorce by mutual consent – Husband agreed that he would pay Rs. 2.60 lacs to the wife but paid only Rs. 1.50 lacs – Breach of trust and cheating – Held – Prima facie case u/s 406 / 420 IPC made out.
57.
Beena Alexander Kurian Versus Alexander Kurian
Hon’ble Justice(s) : K.G.Balakrishnan
Kerala High Court
Subject(s) : Dishonest misappropriation, Limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(3) Crimes 15, 1990 CRI. L. J. 2641
Offence under – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Acquittal as Trial Court found prosecution as afterthought – Appeal against acquittal – Wife deserted husband’’s house, staying with parents and made demand for return of Istridhan – Civil suit by wife for recovery of Istridhan followed by criminal complaint – Complainant failed to prove dishonest misappropriation of Istridhan by the accused-husband – Also, complaint was barred by time – Held – Finding of Trial Court neither perverse nor unreasonable – Acquittal legally sustainable – Appeal dismissed.
58.
Balram Singh Versus Sukhwant Kaur and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992 CRI. L. J. 792, 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 404
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Offence u/s 406 IPC – Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Held – Breach of trust is a continuing offence – Thus, fresh cause of action accrues till accused return of the property of his wife.
59.
Baldev Singh Versus Nasir Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.L.Singhal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Exclusion of period for computing limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 265
Petitioner field complaint u/s 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Petitioner presented application before the Magistrate praying that accused be charge u/s 406 of IPC and Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Magistrate after recording pre-charge evidence, discharged accused persons – Revision against the order of Magistrate – Held – Magistrate was quite justified in returning a verdict of not guilty so far as the accused are concerned – If wife institute any suit for the recovery of article of dowry or the value thereof in the civil Court, period spent by her in these proceedings in this Court, in the Court of Magistrate shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation – Revision dismissed.
60.
Brij Lal Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Sarojnei Saksena
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 319
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Refusal of oath – Territorial jurisdiction – Petition to quash proceedings – Matrimonial home of bride at Hansi, and parental home at Ambala – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Entrusted at Ambala, and taken to Hansi – Dowry articles to be returned at Ambala only – Bride given constant beatings at Hansi – Came back to Ambala – Tried to reconcile, but not called back by her in-laws – FIR u/s 498-A and 406 lodged – Ambala Court has jurisdiction in this regard, as the repercussions of mental and physical torture made at Hansi still persisting at Ambala – Petitioners contending that the bride did not complain of cruelty in her letter – Not held to be a ground to quash the proceedings – Question of fact of authorship of the letters to be decided by Trial Court.
61.
Ashutosh Chowdhury and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.K.Bhattacharjee
Calcutta High Court
Subject(s) : Limitation, Applicability of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. for offence u/s 498-A / 406
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : IV(1995) CCR 132
Offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC are not continuing offences – Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. is applicable for offence u/s 498-A IPC and thus barred by limitation.
62.
Balram Singh Versus Suwkhant Kaur and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 404
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Offence u/s 406 IPC – Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Held – Breach of trust is a continuing offence – Thus, fresh cause of action accrues till accused return of the property of his wife.
63.
Balwinder Kumar Sharma Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1994
Citation(s) : 1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 483, II(1994) CCR 848 (SC)
Petitioner filed petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at Sonepat for offence u/s 498-A / 406 IPC – Held – Police at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to investigate this matter as allegation of cruelty are made with respect to the period when she stayed in her in-laws house which admittedly was at Faridabad – FIR against all petitioner for offence u/s 498-A quashed – It shall be open for complainant to seek remedies for prosecution of the petitioners u/s 498-A in the proper forum.
64.
Baljit Singh and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of FIR, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(1) RCR (Criminal) 39
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR for offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Complainant (wife) of appellant entered into compromise – Held – Complainant agreed to withdraw the case against appellant after both the parties settle there dispute – This Court allowed the parties to settle there claims and this Court allowed petition for quashing FIR – Petition allowed.
65.
Basant Kaur and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(2) C.C.Cases 62 (HC), 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 204
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for seeking quashment of FIR registered against them for offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC and Sec. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act as also entire investigation as well as report u/s 173 of the Code – Entrustment of articles to parents and relation of husband – Property were required to be return in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court – Under territorial jurisdiction of the Court complainant was residing with her parents – Held – Court at Jind had jurisdiction to try the offence – Petition dismissed.
66.
Ashwani Kumar and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Arun B.Saharya
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Failure to prove cruelty in matrimonial proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992 CRI. L. J. 446, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 674, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 73 (HC), 1991 JCC 174
Offences under – FIR – Quashment sought u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Averments in FIR prima faciely prove that husband and in-laws of complainant wife subjected her to “cruelty” – Failure on part of wife to prove allegations of cruelty in matrimonial proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband, as she remained ex parte, whether would disprove allegations in FIR? [No] – Held – Case not fit to quash FIR and proceedings thereupon – Petition dismissed.
67.
Avtar Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.K.Jain
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 157, II(1993) CCR 1346
Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Territorial jurisdiction -Matrimonial house of wife at Panipat where she was given beatings – She was brought to Ludhiana where dowry was demanded from her parents – Wife filed complaint for offence u/s 498-A IPC at Ludhiana – Whether Ludhiana Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance? [Yes] – Held – Incident of subjecting wife to beatings at Panipat and subsequently bringing her to Ludhiana for dowry demand form same part of transaction – However, complaint u/s 406 IPC liable to be quashed as there was no specific allegation of entrustment of particular articles to any particular accused – General and vague allegations in FIR not sufficient to sustain charge u/s 406 IPC.
68.
Balbir Singh and others Versus Sudesh and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.G.Nandi
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compounding of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 34 Year(s) : 2000
Citation(s) : 2000(2) JCC 329
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing of FIR for the offences u/s 406, 498-A, 34 IPC initiated by respondent no. 1 / Complainant – Affidavits filed by petitioner no. 1 and testified to the effect that one daughter has been born and it is settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 that custody of the said daughter will remain with the complainant and deponent does not claim the custody of the child – It is further testified that although the dowry article have been returned to the complainant and as such there is no controversy between the deponent and respondent no. 1 / complainant – Held – In view of the affidavit filed by petitioners and respondent no. 1 / complainant and the decree of divorce u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 and settlement of all dispute, as testified by them as pointed out above, FIR for the offence u/s 406 / 498-A, 34 IPC initiated by respondent no 1 against the petitioners need to be quashed – Petition allowed.
69.
Balwinder Kumar Versus Kashama Devi
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Pritpal Singh
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1987
Citation(s) : 1987 C.C.Cases 554 (HC)
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint – Offence u/s 406 / 34 IPC – Allegation against petitioner that he misappropriate dowry articles given by parents of girl – Prosecution failed to produce any evidence which made petitioner liable for offence – No specific mention of dowry article given at the time of marriage – Held – Fit case for quashing complaint – Petition allowed.
70.
Asha Devi Versus Suman Lata
Hon’ble Justice(s) : R.L.Anand
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 667
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife complaining against husband and other relations – Relations did not reside with couple – Nothing alleged in complaint that they took to their respective houses – Probably they were implicated due to their being relatives of – Held – Court should not encourage wife’’s such attitude and conduct – Proceedings qua petitioners (relations) quashed.
71.
Anil Kumar Versus Rita Kumari
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.K.Agarwal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Entrustment
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1999
Citation(s) : 1999(1) C.C.Cases 355 (HC), 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 813
Complaint for offences under – Allegation of dowry demand, maltreatment, abusing, etc. made against 5 persons – Nothing specifically alleged against them as to what article was entrusted to which accused – Demand for return of articles and that it was declined, not averred – Allegations being general and vague in nature – Held – It was necessary for complainant to make specific and distinct allegations against each accused showing entrustment of articles to them and misappropriation thereof with dishonest intention – Impugned order Magistrate summoning accused persons for offence u/s 406 IPC set aside – Petition allowed.
72.
Angrez Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.S.Bedi
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 53, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 563 (HC)
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint by wife – Quashment of – Complaint suffered from inherent infirmity of vague allegations of entrustment that can not be cured from testimony of witnesses during trial – Complaint manifestly filed with mala fide intention, implicating even the relatives of husband (sister, brothers and parents) who resided separately – Held – Complaint quashed – Petition allowed.
73.
Amandeep Singh Grover Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : R.L.Anand
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing, Compounding of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1998
Citation(s) : 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 429
Offence under – FIR – Parties litigating for over 4 years – Later on, compromised – Wife getting amount as her future maintenance and Istridhan – Held – Marriage dissolved u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act as parties are living separately and had no chance to reconcile – FIR quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
74.
Anil Sharma Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.S.A.Siddiqui
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Validity of framing of charges, Standard of proof, Criminal trial
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 304-B, 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1999(3) C.C.Cases 178 (HC)
Charges framed under – Challenged in revision petition – Held – Strict standard of proof is normally applied to at the final stage of consideration to find out as to whether materials collected by prosecuting agency disclose a prima facie case against accused or not – Court while framing charges is not required to go deep into the probative value of evidence on record – Test to determine a prima facie case, would depend upon facts of each case and laying any general rule or principle valid for all occasions is not practicable – Court is under duty to frame charges, if it is of opinion that that commission of offence is probable consequence – Revision dismissed – Criminal trial – Where Sessions Judge examined all vital witnesses and their evidence is not cotroverted by petitioners, interfering at fag end of trial would not be proper.
75.
Anjali Sharma Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.S.A.Siddiqui
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Acts of cruelty, Discharge – Validity
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 2000
Citation(s) : 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 303, 2000(1) C.C.Cases 36 (HC), 2000(1) JCC 142
Complaint by wife under – Discharge by Magistrate u/s 498-A IPC and charges framed only u/s 406 IPC – Magistrate was of opinion that essentials of offence u/s 498-A IPC not made out – Whether correct? [No] – Held – Where accused-husband allowed his wife to be ill-treated by relations, called her ugly and deserted her without reasonable cause, such willful conduct amounts to legal cruelty – Impugned order of discharge set aside – Direction to Magistrate to frame charges u/s 498-A IPC – Petition allowed.
76.
Amar Bharti Versus State of Punjab
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.L.Jain
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Jurisdiction to grant bail
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1981
Citation(s) : 1981 C.C.Cases 37 (HC)
Offence under – Territorial jurisdiction to grant bail – Whether Court in whose jurisdiction accused was arrested had power to grant bail? [Yes].
77.
Gurmukh Singh and others Versus Bhupinder Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 323, 363, 406, 420, 506, 498-A Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) C.C.Cases 517 (HC), 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 185
Territorial jurisdiction of criminal Courts to entertain complaint – Neither any of the accused persons against whom the complaint was filed by the complainant wife for causing harassment and cruelty came within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court nor any specific allegation of entrustment of dowry articles to any of them other than the husband – Complaint and summoning order qua them quashed.
78.
Anil Bhardwaj and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : D.R.Khanna
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Case of misappropriation between spouses
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 378, 406 Year(s) : 1985
Citation(s) : 1985 CRI. L. J. 613, 1985 C.C.Cases 36 (HC)
Complaint for offences under – Allegation of wife that she was turned out of her matrimonial house but dowry articles retained – Husband and in-laws implicated – Submission of charge-sheet – Held – Prima facie offence made out – No ground to quash the complaint – Offence of misappropriation or theft can be made out where exclusive property of one of the spouses is being unwarrantedly taken away or misappropriated by the other.
79.
Anokh Singh Versus Paramjit Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Grewal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Entrustment, Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(2) C.C.Cases 263 (HC)
Offence under – Complaint by wife against husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of complaint – Allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles to particular accused vague, general and non specific – No allegation that she was refused to such articles when she demanded for the same – Moreover, Court at Faridkot cannot take cognizance of the offence as the allegation was that husband and sister-in-law demanded Rs. 5000/- from the complainant at Aurangabad – No prima facie case u/s 498-A IPC made out even against father-in-law and another sister-in-law as the date, time and manner of alleged demand of Rs. 5000/- and that they subjected complainant to cruelty on such account was not disclosed in the complaint – Held – Avermen
