Select a page

498a Landmark Judgements

  • Rajashri Subhash Kamble Vs. Subhash Babanrao Kamble and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    “The Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction except in exceptional cases particularly when the State has not preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.”

    0
  • Somnath Roy And Anr. Vs. State Of West Bengal

    Court:Calcutta High Court
    Section 498A – “Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.” FIR quashed.

    0
  • MALKIAT SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 406 – Jurisdiction will lie with Police Station having jurisdiction over matrimonial home or some other place where respondent No. 2 lived along with her husband.

    0
  • Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs. State

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
    Prosecution has completely failed to adduce any iota of evidence that the deceased was at any time subjected to harassment by the appellants on demand of dowry – Ingredients of Sec. 498-A not satisfied – Order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding ‘torture’ or ‘harassment’ to the victim woman vis-a-vis demand of dowry. demand of dowry – Prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

    0
  • ALAMURI LALITHA DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498-A — Cruelty — No evidence that death is homicidal or suicide — Evidence suggest, might be natural death — A reasonable nexus has to be established between cruelty and the suicide.

    0
  • SOPAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Benefit of doubt — Complaint an afterthought action of complainant, as filed after 2 years of living separate from husband due to some family dispute — Evidence given by complainant and close relatives is doubtful — These circumstances not considered by trial Court and first appellate Court — Judgment and order delivered by JMFC convicting and sentencing petitioner for offence punishable under Section 498A, IPC set aside.

    0
  • Richhpal Kaur Vs. The State of Haryana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    With respect to charge under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out an offence.

    0
  • SUDESH KUMARI Vs. STATE & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Sections 328, 498A, 406, 34 — Causing hurt by means of poison with intent to commit offence, Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust, Common Intention : Defence taken by accused more probable and all accused acquitted by Trial Court by giving them benefit of doubt : Counsel for petitioner merely reagitated grounds raised before Trial Court : He has not been able to point out any error of law or procedure which has occasioned failure of justice : Not proper for this Court to interfere where petitioner merely re-argues case without showing any error of jurisdiction or of procedure, nor shows any perversity in judgment under challenge : No grounds to interfere in judgment under challenge.

    1
  • Manmatha Kumar Jena and Ors. vs. Smt. Sanjukta Jena

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
    Quashing of order – Cognizance of offences under Secs. 498-A/506/34, IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – No FIR lodged at any police station – Complainant-opp. party conceived at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1 – Held, matrimonial dispute – Dispute of a civil nature which needs determination by a Civil Court or a Matrimonial Court – Filing of complaint petition without informing the police at a belated stage appears to be after-thought and an attempt to coerce or put the petitioner to harassment – Continuance of the complaint case would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Proceeding quashed.

    0
  • Ramesh Chand vs. State of U.P. and Anr.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Section 498-A Complaint could succeed only if it can be proved that there was an “unlawful demand” by the husband of some money. Assuming that the husband had asked the wife to bring some jewellery this by itself could not be unlawful demand as no law would punish a mere demand without settlement of dowry at the time of marriage.

    0
  • Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Section 498-A – Acquittal – Held, it did not appear that applicant had conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants.

    1
  • PASHAURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Cruelty — Not even a word about demand of dowry or harassment on account of dowry by appellant — FIR lodged by B is manifestly attended with mala fides and actuated with ulterior motive — Prosecution of appellant is frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process — FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

    0
  • Deokabai vs. Namdeo and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Acquittal – Sections 34, 107, 494, 498A and 498B of Indian Penal Code – Case regarding cruel treatment vague and general in nature – evidence of witnesses contradictory – held, revision application liable to be dismissed.

    1
  • JASJIT SINGH BAKSHI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Sections 406 and 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 177, 482 — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Territorial jurisdiction — Quashing of FIR — Complaint regarding misappropriation of dowry articles — Court where Istridhan is required to be returned would have jurisdiction.

    0
  • Daud Mohamad Aga and Ors. Vs. State

    Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
    Sections 34, 100, 109 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – State instituted prosecution against petitioners at instance of complainant – on basis of complaint and on examination of witness Magistrate framed charged against petitioners under Section 498A read with Sections 34 and 100 – petitioner challenged Order of Magistrate – in order to come into ambit of cruelty husband harassment must be in furtherance to extract money unlawfully from woman by man – nowhere it has been alleged in complaint that said harassment meted out to extract money unlawfully from de facto complainant – petitioner stands discharged.

    0
  • BOMMA ILAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Section 498-A, Explanation Clauses (a) and (b) — Cruelty : Meaning of cruelty under Clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to Section 498-A, I.P.C. : Evidence on record does not disclose there was cruelty on part of accused of such nature as likely to drive P.W. 1 to commit suicide and cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or physical health : Evidence on record discloses no demand of dowry by A1 or his parents : Clauses (a) and (b) not attracted.

    1
  • Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No FIR and proceedings taken there under can be sustained when no prima facie case and offence alleged in said FIR has been made out against Accused.”

    0
  • Vijay Kumar and Anr. vs. Sunita and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
    Offence of criminal breach of trust might be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.

    0
  • PRADIPTA BASU ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. SMT. BABITA BASU ROY CHOWDHURY & ORS.

    Court:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
    Entrustment with two in-laws and not petitioner-husband –– FIR does not make out prima facie case against petitioner u/Sec. 403 or 406, LP.C. –– Continuance of proceedings –– Abuse of process of Court.

    0
  • Ashutosh Pandey & Ors vs. Smt. Anupama Pandey & Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
    Criminal – Section 406- Quashing of proceedings – Prayer sought to quash entire proceedings of criminal complaint case pending before Court – Held, in view of discussion, Court was of view that impugned complaint aims just to sheer harassment of Husband and his parents and thus, same deserved to be quashed – Petition allowed.

    0
  • State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Criminal – Cruelty – Acquittal by HC- Delay in filing FIR – Trial Court found Accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year – On appeal – High Court set aside the conviction – Whether the High Court is justified in acquitting the Respondent – Held, delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought – A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity – Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained – No interference needed – Appeal dismissed.

    1
  • Prabhakar Jha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ashok Kumar

    Court:HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
    Even if the allegations made by the complainant was taken to be true on its face value then also the Appellate Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case in view of Section 177 and 181(4) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) – Thus entire criminal proceeding against the Petitioners in connection with PCR Case was pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, was without jurisdiction.

    0
  • Shivanand Mallappa Koti Vs. The State of Karnataka

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Conviction for offence under Section 498 cannot be sustained in absence of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles.

    0
  • Jagdish Thakkar vs. State of Delhi

    Court:HIGH COURT OF DELHI
    In a case under S. 498A and 406 bail cannot be denied only on the ground that jewelry and the dowry articles were not recovered.

    4
  • RAJESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 438 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A, 406, 34 — Anticipatory Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust, Common Intention — Complainant still residing in matrimonial house but in separate portion — Complainant and her children provided with maintenance by petitioner No. 1 — Petitioners entitled to be admitted to anticipatory bail.

    0
  • State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A – There is not a slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or he has assaulted or treated the wife with cruelty or torture. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • MANJU RAM KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Determination of — Factor to be considered, discussed — Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract provisions of Section 498A

    0
  • State of Haryana Vs. Jasvinder Singh and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Conviction cannot be based on infirm evidence. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Since investigation leading to closure report was clearly in violation of an express judicial order to the contrary, same is a nullity in law and cannot be accepted. Trial Court requested to take up and dispose of proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against husband and parents-in-law of complainant as expeditiously as possible.

    0
  • Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Offences under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. –No allegations against appellant in respect of offence under Section 498A–No allegation of torture for demand of dowry against appellant. Proceeding relating to offence under Section 498A quashed.

    0
  • Chetan Kapoor @ Vikas Vs. State

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Proceedings under Secs. 498A/406 IPC are not meant for recovery of stridhan. Applicant cannot be denied bail.

    2
  • NAVEEN RANA Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Anticipatory Bail – Pre-arrest bail under Secs. 498A/406/34 IPC – Applicant has joined investigation and cooperating with the police – Proceedings under sec. 498A/406 IPC are not meant to for recovery of jewellery and dowry articles. Applicant granted bail.

    0
  • Mohd. Aslam and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Recently tendency had developed for roping in all relations of in-laws as accused persons and this appears to be case here too – Prosecution had failed to prove either any dowry demand by Appellants or deceased being harassed by Appellants in connection with any such dowry demand so as to prove that it was case of dowry death – Appeal allowed.

    0
  • UNNIKRISHNAN @ CHANDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Live in relationship – Accused acquitted as parties had not undergone some sort of ceremonies with the object of getting married and they just started living as man and wife.

    0
  • RAJ RANI Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 304B, 498A — Bail — Dowry Death, Cruelty — Grant of bail to appellant mother-in-law — If role of two accused persons is same in a crime and Court considers one fit for granting bail, other accused on ground of parity is also entitled for grant of bail — Parents of girl have assigned same role to everyone in family of in-laws, whether they were living in same house or not — Husband and wife were living on a separate floor separate from her parents — Other relatives were living at far off places, still allegations against everyone were same — Bail cannot be denied to mother-in-law despite allegations qua her and other accused persons being same simply because she is mother-in-law — Being mother in law is not a crime in itself — Bail granted to applicant.

    0
  • VIDYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 498-A — Quashing of FIR : Criminal breach of trust, Cruelty : Wife facing criminal prosecution of killing her own husband : FIR lodged against husband under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC against mother of deceased husband : Is counter-blast to FIR registered against wife : FIR lodged by wife quashed.

    2
  • Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Anticipatory Bail-Bigamy-Husband performed second marriage during subsistence of first marriage. There are no criminal antecedents against husband except present case- High Court not justified in dismissing application of Husband only on the basis of petition filed by second wife u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which was withdrawn-order of High Court set aside-Anticipatory Bail granted.

    0
  • Priyanka Kulshrestha Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

    Court:HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
    Section 498A – No evidence on record to prove that complainant suffered from any mental and physical cruelty in the hands of accused – Accused rightly acquitted.

    4
  • Ms. X vs The State Of Telangana

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a cogent case, based on a supervening event, is made out.

    0
  • PRASSANNA VENKARDARI AGRAHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Death of wife in suspicious circumstances — Appellant-accused is a doctor by profession — He has co-operated with police during investigation — Parents of deceased have not lodged any complaint against accused — Father-in-law of appellant has sworn to affidavit that she was living happy married life with appellant and that she had died a natural death — He has no objection for her funeral without post-mortem — Appellant has no criminal antecedents — Anticipatory Bail granted.

    0
  • RASHMI RAIKHY & ANR. Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Sections 406, 498A, 34 — Quashing of Look Out Circular (LOC) — Criminal breach of Trust — Cruelty — Common Intention — Petitioner No. 1 is facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 406, IPC only — For offence under Section 406, IPC in matrimonial dispute, issuance of LOC against petitioners till disposal of case cannot be justified — Offence is not heinous in nature — No allegations that petitioner No. 1 ever absconded and did not participate in criminal proceedings — Petitioner No. 1 is married lady having two children — Main allegations are against complainant’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law — Continuance of LOC order against petitioner No. 1 not reasonable and justified — Authorities directed to withdraw LOC order issued against petitioners.

    5
  • Jay Prakash and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Allegation under section 498a against sister in law are peripheral and appear to have been leveled only to put pressure on husband. Quashed.

    0
  • Dr. Satheesh N.V. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Cognizance of offence – Lack of territorial jurisdiction- Petition to quash proceedings.

    0
  • Eshan Joshi Vs. Suman

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Petitioner challenged that the complaint is without jurisdiction. High Court thus with its vast inherent powers would be able to entertain the petition for quashing to ensure there is no abuse of process of law.

    2
  • SWAPNIL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Allegations are vague and bereft of details as to place and time of incident — Second respondent-wife living separately since April, 2011 — No question of any beating by appellants as alleged by her.

    3
  • RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    No clear allegations have been leveled by Wife against any of her sister in laws. Visits by sister in laws cannot be treated as occasions where they harassed the wife.

    0
  • SHERISH HARDENIA & ORS., AMRISH HARDENIA Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Offence of cruelty – Pleas founded on limitation have to be viewed with great circumspection.

    0
  • GIRDHAR SHANKAR TAWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Maintainability of Charge under Section 498-A, by Reason of Order of Acquittal under Section 306, IPC i.e. Abetment of Suicide : Acquittal of Charge under Section 306, Though not by itself Ground for Acquittal under Section 498-A, IPC but some Cogent Evidence Required to Bring Home Charge under Section 498-A, IPC as well without which Charge cannot be Maintained : Absence of Evidence on Record : Conviction Recorded by Trial Court and High Court Unsustainable, Set aside — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 306.

    2
  • BASANT KAUR & ORS. Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Section 498A — Cruelty : Manifest Abuse and Misuse of Provisions of Section 498A, IPC : Woman Lived with Her Husband for about 24 Years and had Grown Up Children and Tolerated Cruelty from Hands of Her Husband : Though Offence of Matrimonial Cruelty Viewed as Continuing Offence but by no Stretch of Imagination such Acts Committed for 25 Years can be Treated as Continuing Acts : Charges against Petitioners Framed by MM and Affirmed by ASJ Wholly Mis-conceived and Result of Non-appreciation of facts : Both Orders Set Aside.

    0
  • NARINDER KAUR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Sections 498A, 406 — Bail — Cruelty, Criminal Breach of Trust — Grant of bail subject to condition of payment of Rs. 50,000/- by petitioner mother-in-law — Setting aside of condition in interest of justice — Court cannot view exercise of such powers in isolation of all attendant facts — It is unclear as to when complainant picked up quarrel with petitioner and did not receive articles, when offered to her.

    2
  • SONAL SHARMA & ANR., ARUN SHARMA, POOJA SHARMA Vs. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 406 — Criminal Breach of Trust — Criminal intent on part of accused to retain entrusted property — Mere one line at the end of complaint that Istridhan articles are lying with in-laws would not by itself be sufficient to frame charge for offence under Section 406, IPC.

    0
  • KANTILAL MARTAJI PANDOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Section 498A Explanations (a), (b) — Cruelty — Scope and ambit of provision — Clause (b) is not attracted as there was no harassment by husband with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her to meet such demand — Appellant cannot be held guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as is likely to drive deceased to commit suicide — First limb of Clause (a) to Explanation under Section 498A not attracted — Permitting first wife to enter house of deceased with new born child does not amount to cruelty within meaning of second limb of Clause (a) to Explanation of Section 498A, IPC.

    0
  • SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Complainant Wife thought of using Sections 406 and 498A, IPC against family members to teach lesson to every body — Court cannot be swayed by feelings of hatred of complainant. Fair and just investigation is hallmark of any investigation — It is not duty of Investigating Officer to strengthen case of prosecution by withholding evidence collected by him — Fair investigation is right of accused and this right can be exercised by accused at time of charge — Accused can insist upon Court to consider evidence collected by Investigating Officer but not made part of charge-sheet.

    0
  • KOPPISETTI SUBBHARAO @ SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Complainant not a legally wedded wife of appellant, Section 498A, IPC has no application.

    0
  • RUBI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Dowry Demand — Summoning of younger members of family, unjustified. At stage of summoning it is not law that even younger members of family be also summoned to stand trial along with elders even though no specific allegation made against them and their complicity in crime prima facie mala fide and purposive — Levelling general allegations against all family members including unmarried younger girls and boys without specification is practice to be curbed because it will amount to great injustice to ask unmarried younger daughters and brothers to stand trial only because of their relationship with husband.

    0
  • HAZARILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Conviction based merely on surmises and conjectures. There is no other material to show how deceased was being harassed or subjected to cruelty, conclusion of High Court that because deceased committed suicide there must be some harassment and cruelty is insupportable and indefensible — There is vast difference between “could have been”, “must have been” and “has been” — In absence of any material, case falls to first category — Conviction impermissible in such case.

    0
  • B.T. JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Prayer made to reduce sentence to period already undergone under Section 498A. Sentence of appellant reduced to period already undergone — Impugned judgment of High Court modified.

    0
  • SURENDER TOKAS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No acceptable material or legal evidence in support of prosecution story about cruelty or cruel acts of such nature meted out by petitioner, resulting in death of deceased — Charge framed under Section 498A, IPC againsit petitioner quashed.

    0
  • HARI GOPAL WADHWA & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Entire extended family of in-laws of deceased implicated — It is unfortunate police continues to encourage naming of all and sundry while recording statements — Job of SDM was to record statement voluntarily made and not to lead maker of statement into giving pre-determined and designed statements.

    0
  • SMT. SUMANGALA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN ANANT HEGDE & ANR.

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Father of minor taking away his child from custody of mother even without informing her and who is legally entitled for custody of child : That act does not amount to cruelty to her under Section 498-A I.P.C.

    1
  • MRINAL KANTI ROY BARMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

    Court: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
    Section 498a – Insufficient evidence to prove cruelty and demand of dowry — Conviction unsustainable. Mere allegation not enough to prove guilt in criminal case.

    1
  • MANOJ KISKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Article 226 — Extraordinary jurisdiction — Exercise of — Quashing of FIR — Justified if allegations made in FIR do not constitute any offence.

    0
  • SANDEEP SINGH BAIS @ ANSHU & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    General, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to send other relatives of husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with family affairs of complainant — Complainant has not only made vague allegations against Applicants, but she went to extent of assassinating character.

    0
  • STATE Vs. SRIKANTH & ORS.

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Charges Against Accused not Established : Acquittal Justified : In Many Cases where Matrimonial Offences Alleged, Police Indiscriminately Roping in whole of Family Including Brothers, Sisters, In-Laws : Unless there is Specific Material against these Persons it is Wrong on Part of Investigating Officers to Include Whole of Family as Accused Persons : Steps would be Taken to Ensure this does not Happen.

    0
  • GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Quashing of Cognizance Order — General allegation of physical and mental torture in FIR — Mere casual reference of names of appellants in FIR without allegation of active involvement in matrimonial dispute would not justify taking cognizance against them.

    0
  • MANAS ACHARYA Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Cruelty — Quashing of FIR — Both parties resolved all their disputes and differences by way an agreement before Mediation Centre — Marriage between petitioner and respondent was also dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent — However, respondent has opposed quashing of FIR on ground that her entire jewellery/Stridhan has not been returned — Stand taken by respondent is contrary to facts and is neither fair nor just —Agreement executed before Mediation Centre clearly stipulated that settlement amount was a total lump sum amount towards Stridhan, maintenance as well as dowry articles and permanent alimony — Settlement agreement executed between parties is a comprehensive legal, valid and binding document and respondent cannot be allowed to wriggle out of it — FIR as well as any other proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

    0
  • PURSHOTAM GUPTA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act is converted into petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Sections 406, 498A quashed.

    0
  • RAMESH KHULLAR & ANR. Vs. ALKA @ DIMPLE

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 406 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Misappropriation of Dowry Articles : Complaint Absurd : Quashed — Complaint against husband, his sister and brother-in-law after three years of marriage — To say that dowry articles are still with petitioners — Something absurd — When petitioner has gone out of State — Complaint quashed.

    0
  • CHANDER BHAN & ANR. Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Sections 406, 498A — Cruelty, Criminal breach of trust — Scope and object of enactment of Section 498A, IPC — Invocation of provisions of Sections 406 and 498A, IPC by parties to do incalculable harm in breaking matrimony of couples — This Court finds it essential to issue broad guidelines and to give directions in such matters in order to salvage and save institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of couples — Broad guidelines issued to social workers/NGOs, Police Authorities, Lawyers, Courts in this regard — Discussed.

    0
  • BANSI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty — Proof of offence — Discussed.

    0
  • KESHAV KUMAR Vs. STATE

    Court: DELHI HIGH COURT
    Marriage between deceased and appellant not established and they had not been cohabiting as husband and wife or living as husband and wife — Question of convicting appellant for offence under Section 498A, IPC does not arise.

    0
  • HAMIDAN KHATOON & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    FIR lodged with ulterior motive by way of causing harassment : Its continuance will be abuse of process of Court : Criminal proceedings quashed.

    1
  • V.P. DHANESH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Cognizance and proceedings under Section 498-A, IPC, legal and cannot be interfered with : Proceeding in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act quashed.

    0
  • HARMANPREET SINGH AHLUWALIA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Allegations contained in FIR made with an ulterior motive to harass appellants. Continuance of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of Court.

    4
  • HUSSAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Section 406, 498-A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 469 — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty : Limitation for Offence is 3 Years : Limitation shall Commence on Date of Offence.

    0
  • Jagjit Singh And Anr. vs Ravinder Kour

    Court: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
    Complaint against the petitioner and taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate under Section 406 RPC and issuance of process being time-barred by law, are quashed because the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners in the case will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, taking of cognizance against the petitioners and issuance of process against them by the learned Magistrate, are hereby quashed.

    0
  • SHAKSON BELTHISSOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ANR.

    Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    To constitute cruelty under Section 498A there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand — Neither in FIR nor in charge sheet there is any ingredient to prima facie constitute case of cruelty under Section 498A, IPC .

    2
  • SANJAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court: Supreme Court of India
    Three different dying declarations. Prosecution not proved appellant’s guilt under Section 306, IPC of abetting suicide beyond reasonable doubt. Judgments of High Court and Trial Court U/S 306 and 498A quashed.

    0
  • AZAD SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Quashing of FIR : Case registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A, I.P.C. after death of bride after gap of about 2 years : May be out of sheer frustration and to get revenge for death of her daughter, FIR recorded against petitioners : After death of wife, husband entitled to retain her property : No offence under Section 406, I.P.C. made out against petitioner.

    1
  • SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Allegations appear to be totally vague. Not clear from complaint as to when alleged articles or money demanded or misappropriated or given to bride or bridegroom during marriage. Nothing to show prima facie that those articles dishonestly kept by other family members or they declined to return same. Criminal case prima facie baseless, false and frivolous against mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife. Complaint qua quashed.

    1
  • Munish Bhasin & Ors vs State

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Section 438–Anticipatory bail–Offences under Sections 498A and 406 r/w Section 34, I.P.C.–Whether in proceeding under Section 438, Court would be justified in awarding maintenance to wife and child?–Held, “no”–Maintenance can be claimed under Section 125, Cr. P.C.–Hence, condition imposed by High Court while granting anticipatory bail–Directing appellant to pay Rs. 12,500 p.m. as maintenance to his wife and child–Is onerous, unwarranted and set aside.

    1
  • Falguni @ Anirudh Pradhan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    The complainant had sexual intercourse with the Appellant even before marriage, proved that she had not been induced into marriage.More over,lack of material proof as regards the marriage,rendered the prosecutions story regarding mock marriage baseless & so the offence under Section 498A could not be sustained.

    3
  • PRADEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Sections 302/34, 498-A and 201 — Murder, common Intention, Cruelty, Disappearance of Evidence : No eye-witness to occurrence : Defence denied marriage with deceased : Evident from evidence of prosecution witnesses that prosecution failed to establish even marriage of deceased with appellant : Prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against appellant.

    0
  • PENCHALA SADAIAH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment for not fulfilling demand for additional dowry and failed to prove offence under Section 498A, IPC. Husband not found guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC and entitled for acquittal.

    2
  • RAJKISHORE MISHRA & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR.

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Parties have agreed for dissolution of their marriage. Continuance of criminal case under Section 498-A, I.P.C. against husband and mother-in-law of wife not in interest of justice.

    0
  • MOHD. HOSHAN, A.P. & ANR. Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Appellants in Imprisonment for about two Months : Appellant No. 2 is Mother of Appellant No. 1 and Aged 60 Years : Both Appellants on Bail and not Appropriate to Send them to Jail again : Just and Proper to Modify Sentence of Imprisonment for Period Already Undergone — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498-A.

    0
  • PHOOL CHANDRA JAIN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Complainant wife lodged report against her husband, accused — Who alleged to demand dowry and maltreat her — During course of arguments, complainant and her husband mutually settled their differences amicably — Decided to live together — Petition for grant of anticipatory bail allowed.

    0
  • KISHAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Acquittal of Husband in 498A on the ground that the He was not staying with the Wife regularly and used to come only for a few days as he was working in the Army.

    1
  • SONU & ORS. Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Territorial Jurisdiction — Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty — Transfer of FIR — Writ of mandamus — No allegation in FIR that part of crime committed in Delhi — Parties never lived in Delhi — Marriage took place in U.P. — Matrimonial home was in Patiala and alleged crime of dowry allegedly committed in Patiala (Punjab) — There is no illegality in registration of FIR in Delhi, but retaining of FIR with PS, Malviya Nagar raises doubt about bona fides of SHO — SHO, PS Malviya Nagar directed to transfer FIR in question to concerned PS at Patiala (Punjab) where offence committed.

    1
  • SONU KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No specific instance of harassment has been alleged by relatives of Wife. Prosecution has not led any evidence to establish alleged harassment of Wife by Husband.

    1
  • GANGA SHARAN DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Since all the disputes have been resolved between the Husband and the Wife , and the terms and conditions have been implemented, no useful purpose will be served to award substantive sentence to the Husband under Section 498A IPC.

    0
  • Chandraprakash Vs. Pushpa Bai Kushwah

    Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Bail granted to Husband in connection to a case registered under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

    0
  • BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No allegation of cruelty is borne out against appellant. No grievance about ill-treatment meted out to the deceased much less any demand of dowry. No prior complaint or any contemporaneous document has been placed on record to elucid the demand of dowry and harassment by appellant. Version of witness is full of improvements and embellishment which cannot be relied upon. Appellant is acquitted of charge punishable under Section 498A, IPC for which he has been convicted.

    1
  • MANJU RAM KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Section 498A — Cruelty — Determination of — Factor to be considered, discussed — Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract provisions of Section 498A — Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.

    3
  • RAJBABU & ANR. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Nothing on record against Mother-in-Law for cruel act towards Wife. No statement of Father of Wife regarding cruelty being committed on his daughter in her in-laws’ house.

    0
  • Rajinder Kumar vs State (Delhi Admn.)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    After having a finding that there is no allegation for demand of dowry, there is no scope for trial.

    0
  • NIRAJ TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    FIR to be registered at place of crime.

    1
  • MANJU DUTTA Vs. STATE & ORS.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Return of charge-sheet on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

    0
  • Desh Deepak Kapoor Vs. The State (Delhi Administration)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    In order to substantiate a charge under Section 498A IPC, prosecution to prove that there was a demand for dowry, failure whereof renders conviction there-under unsustainable.

    0
  • Sheila Gupta vs State

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Criminal breach of trust – Where family members of Husband are charge-sheeted for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of dowry articles, it does not contemplates entrustment with all technicalities of law of trust.

    0
  • Rakesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Allegations are general in nature. No specific date about beating to complainant Wife has been mentioned nor nature of injuries suffered by Wife has been disclosed.

    3
  • K.V. PRAKASH BABU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    If the Husband gets involved in extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under Section 306, IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in matrimonial dispute. Conviction under Section 306 and 498A, IPC set aside.

    0
  • GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

    Court: CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
    Evidence of mother and aunt of deceased Wife that when deceased came to her parents house she disclosed that appellant was maintaining illicit relations with his sister-in-law and treating deceased with cruelty. Statement covered by Hearsay Rule and does not fall within explanations of Section 32 of Evidence Act. Same cannot be relied upon for finding guilt of accused under Section 498A. No other evidence to connect accused with offence, conviction set aside.

    0
  • Kunaldev Singh Rathore @ Kunal Dev Vs. State Of M.P

    Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Defence documents May Be Examined At Preliminary Stage, If Needed. Under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.

    0
  • Sunil Kumar Yadav And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Another

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Dispute between Husband and Wife settled before Mediation and Conciliation Centre and Wife has received the amount as per the terms and conditions of the settlement. FIR quashed.

    0
  • Sunil Dutt Sharma And Ors. vs State And Anr.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    At the time of framing of charge the trial court is not required to meticulously judge the truth, veracity and the evidence in detail. At the stage of framing of the charge, the material placed before court is only to be looked to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and not whether the material is sufficient for conviction. Husband discharged.

    0
  • Devender Pal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    In disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

    0
  • Manpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Neither Wife nor her father stated about cruelty meted out to Wife by her Husband or his relatives in order to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable. Appeal against acquittal in 498A dismissed.

    1
  • BALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Bail : Two provisions i.e. Sections 438 and 439, Cr.P.C. do not remotely indicate petition has to be filed before Sessions Court first and then before High Court. Power to grant bail conferred equally on both Courts. It is clearly concurrent. Citizen has opportunity to approach Court of Sessions and then High Court.

    0
  • Pooja vs Nidhi @ Sarika

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Not a single cogent allegation nor any specific role attributed to married sister in law by the Wife. Allegation are vague and general in nature. FIR under section 498A quashed.

    1
  • State of Karnataka By Mahila Police vs Gnanendra And Ors

    Court:Karnataka High Court
    Once the demand of dowry is not there, and there is no evidence to back it, question of Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act coming into operation will not arise. No case under section 498A made out.

    1
  • KAVITA Vs. GOVT. OF NCT & ANR.

    Court: Delhi High Court
    Question of cancellation of bail stands entirely on different footing from application for release on bail. Investigating Officer not carrying out investigation not a ground for cancellation of bail.

    1
  • BHAIRON SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    For an offence under Section 498A simplicitor, question of death is not and cannot be an issue for consideration. Conviction and sentence passed on Husband set aside.

    0
  • Rakesh Kumar Vs. State & Anr.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    No relief can be claimed by the complainant after taking benefit of settlement.

    0
  • State Of Maharashtra Vs. Madhu Bhisham Bhatia

    Court:Bombay High Court
    Wife herself contending that presently she is residing with her Husband and other family members including father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law and that whatever differences between the parties has now settled. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • State Of A.P Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    No satisfactory explanation by the wife for delay in filing complaint. Husband Acquitted.

    5
  • SWEETY Vs. PRAKASH KAUR & ORS.

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Story put forth by prosecution as narrated by Wife, found no corroboration whereas there is substance in case put up by Defence. Trial Court elaborately dealt with statement of deceased and other witnesses and found no offence under Section 498A or under Section 406, IPC made out.

    0
  • Noorjahan vs State Rep. By D.S.P

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    No evidence to show that the relative of Husband demanded dowry or was present at the alleged time of dowry.

    0
  • Kiran Tulshiram Ingale Vs. Anupama P. Gaikwad And Ors.

    Court:Bombay High Court
    The criminal proceedings against Husband so also his conviction quashed in view of the mutual understanding, divorce and compromise between Husband and Wife.

    1
  • RAMESHWAR @ PAPPU & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Settlement and Understanding Between Spouses to Amicably Live Together with Harmony: Permission to Compound Offence Granted.

    1
  • Singana Naga Nooka Chakrarao Vs. State Of A.P.

    Court:Andhra High Court
    Woman should be enticed or taken away for purpose of making her have illicit intercourse with another person. Petitioner Acquitted.

    0
  • Radhe Raman Naik And Anr. Vs. State Of Jharkhand

    Court: Jharkhand High Court
    Alleged occurrence of offence took place outside of territorial jurisdiction. The criminal prosecution/proceedings cannot continue.

    1
  • Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State Of Assam

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    A person who is charged with an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for a period ranging from 4 to 10 years is entitled to ‘default bail’ or ‘statutory bail’.

    0
  • VED PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Travesty of justice if two old and aged petitioners viz. father-in-law and mother-in-law made to languish in jail inspite of circumstances on record to suggest their innocence and not connected with offence. Good and sufficient grounds for release of petitioner father-in-law on regular bail and petitioner-mother-in-law on anticipatory bail.

    1
  • ANOOP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

    Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
    Vexatious and malicious complaint. No indicated offences are made out. FIR registered in order to wreak vengeance .Complainant did not point out any allegation/material much less cogent, involving Husband in alleged crime. Impugned FIR and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

    1
  • Gaurav Kumar Singh vs State Of NCT Of Delhi

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Offences alleged against Husband are not of serious nature. Bail granted.

    0
  • RAHUL GUPTA & ORS. Vs. SHALINI AGARWAL & ORS.

    Court:KERALA HIGH COURT
    Cause of action for filing criminal complaint and cause of action for quashing complaint. Distinction between the two explained.

    1
  • VARALA BHARATH KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Wife is only citing incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing prosecution against Husband. There is a total absence of allegations for offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 406 of I.P.C. Proceedings initiated against Husband liable to be quashed.

    0
  • SATYAWATI & ORS. Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Children Entitled to Claim Maintenance, for awarding maintenance to wife living separately, Court to conclude whether she is justified in living separately or not.

    0
  • BIBI PARWANA KHATOON @ PARWANA KHATOON AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Courts must guard against false implication of relatives of Husband.

    0
  • AJAY PAL & ORS. Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 498A, IPC against appellants and judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside — By failing to prove essential ingredient of dowry death as provided under Section 304-B IPC, prosecution has also failed to make out its case against appellants for causing dowry death of deceased.

    0
  • SATISH KUMAR BHATIA Vs. STATE

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    No proof to say that deceased Wife was harassed or meted with cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. Husband Acquitted.

    0
  • STATE OF U.P. Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Not Dowry but Suspected Bad Character of Wife was Main Cause of Strained Relationship Between Two and such Strained Relationship Turned into Bitterness, Eventually Leading to their Divorce. Trial Court Rightly Recorded Finding of Accused being not Guilty. Acquittal of Accused Justified.

    0
  • JAYESH RAMESHBHAI SHAH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

    Court:GUJARAT HIGH COURT
    i) Appreciation of Material on Record. Accused discharged on certain provisions of IPC.
    ii) The Complainant did not tell the cause of injures to doctor; can’t be asked to bring it on record at a later date.

    0
  • BABAJI CHARAN BARIK Vs. STATE

    Court:ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Appreciation of evidence, no evidence for demand of dowry by Husband. Acquitted.

    0
  • TARUN @ GAUTAM MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Appreciation of Evidence : Charge Not Established — High Court on scrutiny of evidence held that offence under Section 306, I.P.C. not established by prosecution but offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C established — This Court scrutinised evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 — Material omission in statement of P.W. 4, maid servant — Evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 5 not of such nature to establish cruelty on part of husband to bring home offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. — High Court erroneously upheld conviction under Section 498-A, I.P.C.

    0
  • SHEKHAR AMONKAR Vs. STATE

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Apreciation of evidence, benefit of doubt given to accused Husband.

    0
  • B. VENKAT SWAMY Vs. VIJAYA NEHRU & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Appeal against acquittal — Circumstantial evidence — Prosecution has not established accusations — In cross-examination P.W. 1 categorically admitted that deceased never personally informed him about alleged harassment by respondent — Evidence of P.W. 6 also has some more loose ends — Evidence of P.W. 3 also corrodes prosecution version — P.W. 3 fairly accepted that he presumed that respondent accused was making demands through his wife-deceased — To add to vulnerability of prosecution case, examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. done as an empty formality — Incriminating materials not put to him.

    0
  • BASAPPA @ BASANAGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Accused Husband and complainant Wife amicably settled matter and filed application under Section 320(6), Cr. P.C. Both submitted to have no differences and having two small kids, not appropriate for this Court to send accused behind bars.

    1
  • DAGADU SHANKAR TODMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Altercation or conflict between husband and wife does not amount to “cruelty” and cannot attract provisions of Section 498A.
    Conviction cannot be based on sentimental approach.

    0
  • STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DULICHANDRA & ANR.

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Vague allegations of cruelty against Husband. Absence of direct and clinching evidence against Husband in respect of cruelty under Section 498A, IPC to victim. Failure of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt against both respondents. No infirmity in impugned order.

    1
  • RAJENDRA RAMKRISHNA LANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Court:BOMBAY HIGH COURT
    Allegations of general nature. Not a case of prosecution that Husband used to physically ill-treat deceased Wife.Fit case to grant benefit of doubt to appellant.

    0
  • UMESH @ BANTI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Allegations made in FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on basis of which it is not possible to proceed against accused person. Criminal proceedings quashed.

    0
  • STATE Vs. DHRUV KUMAR SINGH

    Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    The complainant did not even breathe the Allegations of Cruelty in Reply to Divorce Petition. No Illegality in Findings of Acquittal recorded by Magistrate based on Appreciation of Evidence. Offence under Sections 498-A and 406, I.P.C. not proved against Accused. – Acquittal Upheld

    0
  • SANGANNAGARI NARASIMULU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Only source of information for mother is that, deceased informed her about alleged harassment. Said statement cannot be taken as gospel truth and weak piece of evidence as deponent is not subjected to cross-examination. Conviction under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code set aside.

    0
  • CHERUKU UMAPATHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Prosecution unable to point out any other legally acceptable evidence to sustain conviction of Husband under Section 498-A, I.P.C.: Conviction and sentence recorded against Husband under Section 498-A, I.P.C. unsustainable and set aside.

    0
  • BANDAKURI PARVATHI Vs. BANDAKURI VIJAYA KUMAR & ANR.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Difference between wife and husband cannot be branded as cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code : Ingredients not even alleged, much less proved : Order of acquittal cannot be converted to one of conviction in revision.

    0
  • RUPAM RIMPI VERMA Vs. DR. PRANAY VERMA & ORS.

    Court:JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Considering materials brought on record and respective cases of parties, Trial Court rightly acquitted Husband on cogent reasons, No grounds made out for interference with impugned judgment.

    0
  • SHEETAL PRASAD GAUR AND OTHERS Vs. BHAGWANDAS

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Alleged commission of offences punishable under Secs. 294, 506-B and 500 r/w Sec. 120-A I.P.C. — Filed with ulterior motive of harassing the petitioners — Allegations patently absurd and inherently improbable — Complaint registered mechanically — Whether correct ? (Yes).

    0
  • ARJUN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Quashing of order taking cognizance : Cruelty, hurt, theft, bigamy : Complaint case filed only after coming to know of filing of Title (M) Suit for divorce and it is actuated with mala fide intention : Order taking cognizance quashed.

    0
  • SURENDRA HOTA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

    Court: ORISSA HIGH COURT
    Complaint petition itself does not disclose commission of any offence committed by petitioners — Rather it reflects anguish of complainant for having been impleaded as OP in case filed for award of compensation due to death of her husband in vehicular accident and non-return of articles alleged to have been given at the time of her marriage to deceased husband — Continuance of criminal proceeding would be abuse of process of law and result in failure of justice — Proceedings quashed.

    0
  • SANTOSH KUMAR MAURYA @ SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    PATNA HIGH COURT
    No specific instances of alleged torture or cruelty with exact date and time as also location furnished — General and bald statement of victim being subjected to torture and cruelty as also assault has been made — Instant complaint is by way of counterblast to divorce case filed by petitioner which eventually was decreed and first appeal preferred there against before Allahabad High Court was dismissed.

    0
  • YOGESH CHHIBBAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Complaint Filed by Un-authorised Person : Cognizance Wrongly Taken — Dowry Prohibition Officer Not Empowered to File Complaint — Power to file complaint cannot be inferred from analogy of powers of Dowry Prohibition Officer enumerated in Section 8B.

    0
  • DEEPAK SHUKLA Vs. MAHENDRA CHANPURIYA

    Court: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty for Demand of Dowry Alleged to be made on 1.6.1993; Complaint Filed Beyond Three Years of Date 1.6.1993, Barred by Limitation : Allegations Regarding Demand of Dowry Figment of Imagination : Complaint Filed by Complainant More than Three Years After Filing of Divorce Petition by Petitioner against Respondent : Continuance of Criminal Proceedings against Petitioner, Abuse of Process of Court : Proceedings Quashed.

    0
  • AMIT GARG & ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

    Court:ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
    Hurt, Cruelty, Criminal Intimidation, Dowry Demand — Quashing of charge-sheet — CJM took cognizance but not perused the charge-sheet and perused order in a casual manner — He has not applied his judicial mind — Impugned order is illegal and set aside.

    0
  • SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

    Court:PATNA HIGH COURT
    Cost of jewellery given at time of negotiation already returned — Continuance of criminal prosecution would amount to misuse of process of Court.

    0
  • MOKA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    Cognizance of offence taken on vague statements recorded By Investigation Officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police : No Specific Allegation Against Petitioner.

    0
  • V. CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. VASANTHA & ANR.

    Court:DELHI HIGH COURT
    Plea of entrustment of jewelry and refusal to return demand for the first time — Other litigation pending — Whether proceedings liable to be quashed ? (Yes).

    1
  • SATISH KUMAR GOGIA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Brothers of husband arraigned as accused without substance — FIR quashed a qua them.

    0
  • PASHAURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Bigamy — Ingredients of Section 494, discussed — In present case ingredients of Section 494 not satisfied — Appellant’s marriage with K was not subsisting on date of second marriage — From the affidavit filed by complainant it is apparent that her husband obtained divorce judgment — Nothing in affidavit that divorce judgment has been stayed or set aside — FIR liable to be quashed.

    0
  • RISHI ANAND & ANR. Vs. GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

    Court:Supreme Court of India
    Alleged Acts of Beating, Even if Assumed to be Correct, does not make out Case to Proceed under Section 406, IPC .

    0
  • KAVITA SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. MEGH RAJ AND ANOTHER

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Wife did not come forward for joint petition- Whether wife has committed an offence of cheating ?

    0
  • A. GOVINDARAJAN & ORS. Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

    Court:MADRAS HIGH COURT
    Quashing of proceedings — Hurt, criminal breach of trust, cruelty, common intention, dowry demand — Points raised by petitioners to be considered only after recording evidence at appropriate time by Trial Court — Prosecution examined so far five witnesses and points raised by learned Counsel for petitioners relating to appreciation of evidence cannot be considered at this stage for quashing proceedings — All points raised by learned Counsel for petitioners to be raised only after conclusion of trial before trial Judge.

    0
  • SUBHASH SIKHWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Court: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
    D.N.A. Test Application: Sensitive Case : In such Type of Matrimonial Cases, Judge cannot Afford to Sit Tight Over Matter for Long Time : Family Court Directed to Decide Application Expeditiously.

    0
  • RAJNEESH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

    Court:Punjab-Haryana High Court
    Complainant has no objection if impugned FIR and all other consequent proceedings arising thereto against petitioners are quashed — Since the compromise is in their welfare and interest, there is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality and to quash criminal prosecution to set the matter at rest to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy life and liberty in a dignified manner — Impugned and subsequent proceedings quashed — Petitioners acquitted of charges framed against them.

    0
  • TARLOCHAN R. JHAVERI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

    Court:Gujarat HIGH COURT
    When the statute provides for specific remedy and procedure, then extraordinary jurisdiction or writ jurisdiction or inherent powers are not required to be exercised — Parties should be relegated to follow the procedure prescribed by statute.

    0
  • NEERA SINGH Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

    Court:Delhi High Court
    Vague and omnibus allegations against other family members — No allegations of perpetuating cruelty on her by any of four respondents in order to compel her to bring more dowry or any particular items — No reason to disagree with order of Courts below.

    0
  • VIJETA GAJRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Appellant was not ‘relative’ in any manner as referred to in Section 498A, IPC — There is no question of any allegation against her in respect of ill-treatment of complainant — No question for her prosecution under Section 498A .

    0
  • V. SHANKARAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

    Court:ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Abetment of Suicide : No Averment in Charge Sheet or Material on Record to Show Petitioner Either Induced Deceased to Commit Suicide or Aided Suicide of Deceased : He is not Liable to be Charge-sheeted for Offence under Section 306, I.P.C. : Proceedings Quashed.

    0
  • MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

    Court:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, Attempt to Murder : Accused Absconding : Case Split up and Charge Sheet Laid Against other Accused, who were Acquitted : Evidence Produced in case of Accused cannot be Different from One Produced by Prosecution against other Accused : No Possibility of Conviction : Proceedings Quashed.

    0
  • NIRANJAN CHATTERJEE & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

    Court: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
    Quashing of proceedings: Cruelty, demand of dowry: Allegations made in complaint constitute offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 , Dowry Prohibition Act : At stage of taking cognizance Court to consider only averments made in complaint petition, statements of complainant and witnesses : It cannot be said filing of complaint was mala fide : No case for quashing of criminal proceedings made out. Application dismissed.

    0
  • CHANDRALEKHA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Criminal Breach of Trust, Cruelty — Quashing of FIR — Allegations are extremely general in nature — No specific role is attributed to Husband and his Family.

    0
  • BHARAT SINGH v. STATE OF M.P

    Court:MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
    Cruelty, dowry demand — Limitation — Computation of period —
    Territorial jurisdiction — Allegations with respect to cruelty and torture committed at matrimonial home at Karera — JMFC rightly directed to file charge-sheet within territorial jurisdiction of Court where alleged act of cruelty happened.

    0
  • ARUN VYAS & ANR. Vs. ANITA VYAS

    Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
    Discharge of Accused : After Taking Cognizance of Offence but before Trial of Case by
    Magistrate : Not Illegal — When there is prima facie evidence or material
    against accused in support of charge, Magistrate may frame charge in accordance
    with Section 240, Cr.P.C. — Where taking cognizance of offence is contrary to any provision of law. Magistrate cannot frame charge.

    0
  • Vijay Kant Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan

    No arrest in 498A until report recieved from Family welfare committee.

    0
  • Rajesh Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh.

    0
  • Rajesh Sharma & ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.

    Section 498A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. Violation of human rights of innocent cannot be brushed aside; directions given to prevent the misuse of Section 498A

    0
  • Smt. Indu Bala & ors. Vs. Delhi Administration & ors.

    Sections 498 A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – petitioners sought anticipatory bail for offence punishable under Sections 498 A and 406 – whether counsel who appeared on behalf of complainant heard in matter or not – for offences which committed against society State is only party which has to prosecute accused before Court of law – Section 438 does not contemplate any hearing given to complainant party in police case – complainant can assist Public Prosecutor when proceedings conducted at stage of inquiry, trial or appeal – precedent referred – held, complainant has no right to be heard in applications seeking anticipatory bail.

    1