Discharge Judgements

Court:Delhi High Court
Sections 498A, 34 — Cruelty, Common Intention — Charge against petitioners not prima facie made out nor any grave suspicion raised — It is highly improbable to assume that married sisters of husband who got married much prior to marriage of complainant and living in their own matrimonial homes would come down simultaneously to matrimonial home of complainant, and subject her to dowry demand and consequent cruelty. Petitioners are discharged.

Court:HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Even if the statements of the complainant and her parents are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety that the behavior and talks of the complainant was like that of a girl living in a slum or the parents of the complainant did give her proper education it did not make out any prima facie case in respect of the offences under Sections 498A/506/406/ 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Criminal – discharge – if Magistrate finds that charge against accused do not make out prima facie case and does not furnish basis for framing charge the accused is discharged.

Court: MUMBAI HIGH COURT
Ingredients of 498A not attracted, discharged

Court: Supreme Court of India
Moral obligation versus legal obligation

Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jurisdiction explained in criminal offences. 498A complaint transfered on Jurisdiction

Court: Supreme Court of India
406 Requires Dates of Entrurstment and Date of Denial

Court: Supreme Court of India
Need material evidence to prove dowry demand.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Paramour of husband not under the defination of relative u/s 498A. Discharged

Court: Supreme Court of India
Living with “another woman” would not attract the wrath of Section 498A against “other” women