Is Your relatives are Victim of False 498a case?

Quash 498a -Vague allegations in Fir The case of 498a can be quashed when there are vague the allegations in the FIR. A FIR is a first document on which whole investigation and chargesheet is based.

Quashing false 498a is a technique and depends on following conditions

 

A FIR is bible for getting evidence and eventually to secure conviction of an accused based on the evidence, therefore a FIR must contain all the material facts related to an offence. It also must contain all the specific ingredient needed for satisfying an offence and material through which investigation may proceed.

If a FIR misses material facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC. Image result for 498a quash Some believe that if a FIR satisfies the ingredients of an offence it is not the case for being fit for quashing but this preposition is untrue under the light of the judgement

 

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings. A FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and satisfy the ingredients of an offence.

 

It is held in Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya … vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 December 2015 It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern

When FIR Against Relatives cannot be quashed.

In a recent judgement of Bombay High court the FIR against Relatives cannot be quashed if the allegations against the relatives are specific and role is defined. In this Judgement there was a specific allegtions against the relatives of the husband who used to demand Rs. 50,000/- as dowry instead of Playing a role to stop the husbnand from continuing with the extra marital affair.

FIR AGAINST RELATIVES QUASHED AS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

In 498A are generally all the relatives are implicated in one line and hence court cannot find out the specific role of the relatives in 498a case and hence the result is the allegations become omnibus and vague

In Aniket Jayprakash Chavan and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra

Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others; MANU/SC/0163/2022 : (2022) 6 SCC 599, after dealing with previous land mark cases on this ground in para 18 has held as under:

“18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”

11. On the touch-stone of above legal settled position, we proceed to deal with the case in hand to ascertain whether case is made out for quashment of the FIR and consequential proceeding.

Aniket Jayprakash Chavan and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (28.11.2022 – BOMHC) : MANU/MH/4138/2022

On visiting the FIR filed at the instance of respondent No. 2, it is emerging that she and applicant No. 1 were married on 24th May, 2014. Allegations are that after a week of marriage, in-laws, who were unhappy for not giving honours to them in the marriage, asked her to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from her parents. Exactly when such demand was raised is not mentioned in the complaint. Thereafter, for some days she was treated properly but again after six months, it is alleged that as the demand was not fulfilled, she subjected to mal-treatment and even asked to leave the house. It is stated in the complaint that her parents paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the applicant No. 1-husband. When such amount was paid is also not specified in the complaint. According to her, she gave birth to a son in 2015. It is stated that she was treated well for some period. But again the applicants put up a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- for expanding business of mineral water and on that count she was abused, beaten and driven out of the house. Finally, on 5th October, 2017, she was driven out of the house after being abused, beaten and threatened to kill her son. Hence, she approached to Police and lodged the complaint.

Aniket Jayprakash Chavan and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (28.11.2022 – BOMHC) : MANU/MH/4138/2022

“9. I have perused the complaint dated 15.04.2008 which contains the detailed allegations made by the petitioner against her husband and in-laws. The only allegation made against respondent no. 2 in the complaint is that her brother in-law i.e. respondent no. 2 had a bad eye on her and in-laws supported him. In the opinion of this court, the alleged act of respondent no. 2 in having a bad eye on the petitioner does not amount to cruelty as per explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC.

10. The other allegations against respondent no. 2 are that petitioner’s husband used to invite respondent no. 2 in his room and used to watch TV till 12 o’clock in the night due to which petitioner was made to wait in the drawing room. It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner’s husband used to force her to go with respondent no. 2 and when petitioner opposed this, her husband and in-laws used to beat her. The aforesaid allegations of the petitioner are against the conduct of her husband and no cruelty has been alleged against respondent no. 2 in the above stated allegations in terms of Explanation (a) and (b) of Section 498A IPC. There are no other allegations alleging harassment by respondent no. 2 for the purpose of dowry by the petitioner in her complaint. Therefore, from the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint, no offence u/s. 498A IPC is made out against respondent no. 2. Hence, the ld. trial court rightly discharged the respondent no. 2 for the offence u/s. 498A IPC as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as discussed hereinabove.”

Shipali Sharma vs. State and Ors. (18.08.2022 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/3025/2022

I have gone through the investigation and the statements of witnesses. Differences are in between A1 and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is a working woman and employed in Railway department. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioners 2 and 3 were harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally for additional dowry. Apart from the said allegation, there is nothing specific about any incident or event that is narrated by the 2nd respondent to find that there was harassment by the petitioners 2 to 4. Stating that she was severely harassed for additional dowry and petitioners 2 to 4 were involving in their matrimonial disputes and harassing her will not suffice to continue the prosecution insofar as petitioners 2 to 4 are concerned.

7. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar [MANU/SC/0163/2022 : (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless there are specific and distinct allegations against the accused, the proceedings can be quashed. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court should be careful in proceeding against relatives who are roped in on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [MANU/SC/0592/2010 : (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667] held that the Courts have to scrutinize the allegations made with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and rarely have visited or stayed with the couple.
9. In the result, the proceedings against petitioners/A2 to A4 in C.C. No. 6894 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against A1 shall continue.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Porika Jadhav Naik and Ors. vs. State of Telangana and Ors. (10.01.2023 – TLHC) : MANU/TL/0079/2023

From the face of record, it is admitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law of respondent no. 2/complainant. Respondent no. 2 has made only omnibus allegations against the present petitioners in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The respondent has lived with the present petitioners for a long period, such types of allegations have not been leveled by her to any one and no report was filed and first time, she has leveled the allegations filing the FIR against the petitioners almost 5 years later of her marriage.

10. It is also submitted that 31.01.2019, an NCR was lodged before the Police Station Sanyogitaganj, but no allegations have been made regarding harassment and cruelty which reproduced as under:-
11. On the same day, a written application was also filed before Mahila Thana, Indore regarding demand of dowry and cruelty and on 08.04.2019 also, a written complaint was again filed. In the complaint dated 31.01.2019, there is no allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty and made the allegations on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. On 30.01.2019, there is no allegations of demand of dowry and only omnibus allegations were leveled against the petitioners by the respondent.
12. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra), it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that “large number of family members had been included in FIR casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Under such circumstances, cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process”
13. In the light of the above principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case, in the opinion of this Court, except omnibus allegations, there is nothing on record against the petitioners and merely by making general allegations that the petitioners are involved in torture of the complainant, it would not be just to proceed against the petitioners when the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under section 498A, 323/34 of IPC.
14. In view of the preceding analysis, this petition is allowed. Impugned FIR dated 08.04.2019 bearing Crime No. 68/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under Section 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 alongwith the subsequent proceedings pending before the JMFC, Indore in Case No. 2494/2019 pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The petitioners namely Kul Bhushan Gupta, Smt. Sangita Gupta and Dr. Rohit Mittal are discharged from offences aforesaid

Kul Bhushan Gupta and Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (11.11.2022 – MPHC) : MANU/MP/3189/2022

Advocate Nitish banka 498a Quash Expert-:

How to Fight False 498a-A complete Guide

498a is filed by wife just to harass you.

False 498a cases are very common in the society and lot of steps has been taken by Hon’ble Apex court also to prevent its misuse. Quashing of false 498a is possible but first you need to know the reason for false 498a

These days false 498a cases gropes all the relatives father, mother sister who may be staying away from the matrimonial home still they become party to 498a.

Here are the reasons wife has filed false 498a cases on your family.

1.Money

Your wife may be after your money wants to harass you and your family in false 498a cases. Because mental harassment can cause you settle at a very handsome amount.

2.You refused to give her divorce

If you have refused to give him/her divorce then you may definitely face proceedings under false 498a and 406 and now 377 IPC are common.

 3. Pressure from her relatives

Matrimonial discords are common in marriages sometimes relatives make it a bigger issue. Negative relatives can lead to false 498a cases.

4. She has an affair

if wife having an affair somewhere else and you got to know then also wife can put these  false cases for only reason called harassment so that you may not be able prosecute her for adultery.

What happens in false 498a cases

Police calls in false 498a cases

You receive a call from the police station and on the other line there is an Investigating officer is on the  other side of the line.For one moment panic strikes you and you come to know that your wife has lodged a false 498a case against you and your family.

The Io asks you to visit police station so called CAW cell.

When you go and visit CAW cell harassment starts poring in the IO and other mediators starts pressurizing you to settle the matter. You gain strength and refuse to settle the matter and comes back to your home.

Then again you receive the call from the CAW cell to come and join then again then again….

Reasons for harrasment

These calls from CAW cell are against the law and just meant to harass you. Even if you join the mediation  process and attend N number of dates present defence evidence to the IO. Still the CAW complaint gets converted into FIR and these calls fails to stop…

The reason for such calls is done with clear motive of harassment and put pressure to settle the issue with estranged wife and if you fail to settle then FIR is converted.

How to deal with police harassment.

As per the Delhi High Court Judgement they have prescribed certain guidelines which is envisaged under Section 41A of CrPC that a written notice with prescribed format has to be sent to the accused while summoning him to appear before IO. So if IO calls the accused i.e husband and relatives of the husband by making a mobile call that is impermissible as per law.

Anticipatory bail in 498a

Anticipatory bail in 498a is advisable and recommended

A family comes under pressure when they come to know that a FIR under section 498a has been lodged in police station.

The first cause of stress is call be Investigating Officer to join investigation to old parents, husband, husband sister or brother.

The trauma is whether they can be arrested or not.

It is not advisable to visit investigating officer without protection from the court this protection is termed as Anticipatory Bail.

The process of getting Anticipatory Bail in 498a

The chances of getting bail under 498a is quite high as I have already discussed in detail in one of my articles

chances of getting anticipatory bail 

The conditions of anticipatory bail are not very stringent but if they are stringent it can always be challenged. I have discussed in detail the conditions Conditional Anticipatory Bail

Now as per the judgement of 498a under Rajesh Sharma versus State of Uttar Pradesh. there is a stay on automatic arrest in the cases of 498a. But this judgement is challenge in higher bench and revisit the judgement.

Judgement on 41A by Delhi High Court

(i) Police officers should be mandatorily required to issue notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C (in the prescribed format) formally to be served in the manner and in accordance with the terms of the provisions contained in Chapter VI of the Code. Model…

Recent Case

 

In the Recent case of Saroj Devi V. State of Delhi NCT. Advocate Nitish Banka helped Sh. Birendra Prasad in quashing his case which his daughter in law has lodged.

Sh. Nitish Banka was able to secure favorable order from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India