Is Your relatives are Victim of False 498a case?

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

 


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.

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

354 ipc
SAVE YEARS IN LITIGATION BY QUASHIN FALSE 498A

 

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

Advocate Nitish banka 498a Quash Expert-:

Advocate Nitish Banka is a 498a Quashing expert 

Call  or watsapp @9891549997

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

498A Vague Allegation Quashed Recent Cases

Judgements on Section 498A Quashing

  1. Swapnil and other vs. State of MP on May 09, 2014: (Supreme Court)

Allegations are vague and bereft of details as to place and time of incident wife living separately since April, 2011 no questions of any beating by appellants as alleged by her, beating by husband not proper date is mentioned in the FIR thus it is a vague allegation and FIR has been quashed through the order of the court.

 

  • Chandralekha and others vs State of Rajasthan and another: (Supreme Court)

Criminal breach of trust, cruelty-quashing of FIR, allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to husband and his family. FIR is lodged after 6 years when wife leave her husband and her matrimonial home for 498A. FIR was quashed by the order of the court as FIR was lodged after 6 years as vague allegations were made by the wife in the FIR.

  • Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti on October 7, 2009: (Supreme Court)

406 requires dates of entrustment and date of denial. That after 9 years of marriage wife made a complaint of 498A. The ornaments which were given at the time of marriage is not properly mentioned in the complainant and wife said after husband came to meet his demand for dowry and wife and her parents paid the amount and give ornaments to husband his mother and father which was not mentioned properly with date and weight. Complaint was quashed by the order of the court as is seems that allegations are vague which were made by the wife under the complaint on her husbands and in- laws.

  • Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs. State and another on October 12, 2007: (Delhi High Court)

406 quashed for all as no specific allegations of entrustment of istridhan made in complaint. Each person charges dissected by the judge before quashing charges against all but husband in USA. In the present complaint, a sweeping statement has been made by the wife that her istridhan was entrusted to the family of her husband. There are no specific and clear allegations about the entrustment of istridhan to any of the present petitioners. Wife has not specifically mentioned as to which of the present in- laws and husband. It is said that the allegations made in the complaint by wife do not constitute an offence U/S 498A IPC against the in- laws of women. Nothing the fact that no specific allegations of entrustment of istridhan has been made out against the in-laws./

Pashaura Singh vs. State of Punjab on November 13, 2009: (Supreme Court)

FIR manifestly malafide and with ulterior motive. Prosecution has not at all legitimate, rather it is a frivolous, vexations, unwarranted and abuse process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court comes down heavily on a false and malafide 498A filed at the instance of an Canadian Indian women and her family.the Hon’ble Court says that the FIR was lodged by Balwant Singh (Wife’s Brother) is manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with ulterior motive. The prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate, rather it is frivolous, vexations, unwarranted and abuse of process. The husband has made out a case for quashing the FIR and quashing has been allowed by the court.

Dinesh Kumar Lal and another vs. The State of Bihar on October 04,  2011: (Patna High Court)

Husband of wife moved the quashing in Patna High Court for quashing the vague allegations which was made by the wife on her husband on various grounds. The court founds that no offence was made out under the section 307 and 313 of IPC as far as it concerned husband. The in- laws being aggrieved by the order moved by the supreme court for quashing of the allegations u/s 498A, 313 and 307 IPC are quashed against the mother – in – law and father-in-law, it can hardly be held that petitioner who lived in another town, could responsible for the allegations have been made after a great delay and unbelievable on the face of it. h

Quash 498a on Juridsdiction

Quashing of 498a happens in very rare occasions may be 5% cases are eligible for quash 498a. The 498a case can be quashed on the basis of vague allegations on relatives.

But mostly on the quashing of 498a happens on the basis of Jurisdiction.

Test if FIR can be quashed on basis of Jurisdiction

To quash 498a the most common test is if the FIR is filed in parental home and she alleges allegations in the matrimonial home. Then there are good chances to quash 498a based on such facts.

Image result for 498a quash

Judgments to quash 498a on grounds of Jurisdiction

Territorial Jurisdiction under section 177 Crpc

In Manish Ratan V state of MP 2007 (1) SCC 262 Merely wife was forced to leave home to Datia from Jabalpur, the courts at Datia will have no jurisdiction. In this case, the case was transferred to Datia from Jabalpur.

In Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs, State of Chattisgarh 2016 (9)SCC 1

The offense of dowry death happened in Ambala but Fir was lodged in Chattisgarh there was no allegation of continuing cruelty, therefore, registration of FIR in Durg was without jurisdiction and hence it was quashed.

In Dharam Raj V state of UP.2006(2) ADJ 403

The allegation of dowry demand and harassment as per the FIR alleged to have happened in Tadwa, Jaunpur Sultan pur and Gorakhpur the courts in Lucknow was held to have no Jurisdiction.

Hiralal Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa 2006 Cri LH 3809

Complainant stayed in Talcher and FIR was lodged in Bargarh demand of dowry alleged to have taken place in Talcher and no allegation in FIR to suggest that the demand of dowry took place in Bargarh the proceedings pending in Bargarh court was quashed.

Debabrata Saha V. State of Jharkhand.

The demand of dowry and harassment was confined to matrimonial home at Kolkata and no demand of dowry took place in Dhanbad. Acceptance of dowry articles in Dhanbad also does not constitute an offense or part of the cause of action.

By Adv.Nitish Banka

[email protected]