Important Judgments On Fir Quashing In 498a

Bhupinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.” 2003 Crl.J. 3394 Punjab & Haryana High Court “….the allegations made against the petitioner are vague and general. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the husband has been implicated in this case. The initiation of criminal proceedings against them in the present case is clearly an abuse of process of court…..”

“Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs.  State & Anr” reported in 2007 (4) JCC 3074  “cruelty – pre-conditions for – For attracting provisions of Explanation (b) to Sec. 498A is the demand – If demand is missing and cruelty is for the sake of giving torture to the woman without any nexus with the demand – Then such a cruelty will not be covered under Explanation (b) to Sec. 498A, IPC – Same may be a cruelty within scope of Hindu Marriage Act”

“Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu”  2005 (1) JCC 493 SC “appellant is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is residing in Delhi with her family – Nothing to connect her with an offence under Sec 498A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken by Judicial Magistrate at Trichy – certain acts attributed to the appellant in regard to taunting and ill-treatment of informant by appellant do not constitute any offence of dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to informant – The bald allegations made against the appellant seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible – High Court ought not to have relegated the appellant to the ordeal of trial – Hence proceedings against the appellant are quashed – Appeal allowed.”

“Harsh Vardhan Arora Vs. Smt. Kavita Arora”  2002 (2) RCR Crl. 499 Punjab & Haryana High Court “Omnibus allegations had been made against all the accused in respect of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and beating given to her during the period she stayed in the matrimonial home, no specific date, month or year had been specified when these incidents had taken place…”

“Bhajan Lal Bhatia & Ors. Vs. Sarita Neelam”  2005 (1) HLR Punjab & Haryana High Court, 49 “to constitute an offence U/s. 406 and 498A IPC, there should be specific allegations regarding entrustment of some property to the accused – to constitute an offence U/s. 498A IPC it is necessary to allege that husband or a relative of the husband of a woman must have committed cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. No specific incidence as to which article of dowry as alleged was handed over to which of the petitioner….”

“Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State”  2002 (1) RCR Crl. 82 that “it has almost become a practice that whenever a police report is lodged, consequent upon a matrimonial discard, there is always a tendency on the part of complainant to involve practically all the relations of her in-laws family either out of vengeance or to curl out appropriate settlement. Such a tendency ought to be deprecated”

 State of AP Vs M. Madhusudan Rao 2009 vol. I JCC 2983 SC “498A-interpretation-harassment simplicitor is not cruelty-it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing  a women or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property, etc.-that it amounts to cruelty punishable under section 498A”.

 Raj Kumar Khanna Versus state 95 (2002) DLT 147,  “………..section 498A-cruelty: Harassment by itself not cruelty unless there is demand of dowry and cruelty is consequence of that demand-precondition for attracting provisions of section 498A is demand-if demand is missing and cruelty is for sake of giving torture to women without any nexus with demand, such cruelty will not be covered under section 498A explanation (b) IPC…..” Section 406-criminal breach of trust: no entrustment of any articles to petitioner offence under section 406 qua petitioner not made out FIR and proceedings quashed…..”

 “Onkar Nath Mishra and others versus state NCT of Delhi and others reported in 1 (2008) DMC 265 SC” “……..cruelty –no whisper of willful conduct of appellant no. 1 and 2 of harassment of complainant at their hands with view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract provision of section 498A, charge under section 498A IPC not made out against appellant……….”

 Neera Singh Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1996 SC 67 “that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of section 498A. Sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of dowry.