Here is the analysis of some of the Judgements related to 498A quashing
498A Quashed because wife failed to mention allegations of dowry demand in written statement filed by her in the Divorce Case filed by Husband
It appears that marriage of informant-opposite party No. 2 and petitioner e No. 3 was solemnised on 1.7.1998 and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a girl child on 15.6.1999. On 15.3.2000 petitioner No. 3 filed matrimonial (divorce) case on the ground of cruelty and adultery and thereafter opposite party No. 2 filed the present case under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the entire family of petitioner No. 3, her husband leveling general and vague allegation against them. It has been stated that the allegation made in the First Information Report does not find place in the written statement filed by the informant-opposite party No. 2 in Matrimonial Case No. 49/ 2000, which was filed earlier to lodging of the FIR, which fact has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The facts aforementioned goes to show that the present case has been maliciously instituted by the informant with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge.Thus, in my opinion, continuance of criminal proceeding against the petitioners will be sheer abuse of the process of the Court.
Sanjay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (19.12.2005 – PATNAHC) : MANU/BH/0429/2005
No specific time frame and allegation mentioned related to 498a FIR quashed
A bare reading of the complaint generated by respondent No. 1 reveals that there is no specific accusation, there is no exact period, during which the offence is committed and the same is at a grossly bleated stage, without a whisper about the delay under which circumstance it had occurred. The allegations prima facie, are absolutely general and vague in nature and it appears that with a view to take revenge or to secure custody of child this attempt is made by alleging the offence against the petitioner and therefore, the criminal law may not be allowed to put to motion in such a casual and cavalier way by any citizen and time and again decisions are taken to the effect that process of criminal law is precious in nature and therefore, it may not be allowed to be put in motion in a routine or casual manner. This background of facts clearly establishes that prima facie, no offence having been committed. The ultimate conclusion would lead to a situation that the Court is constrained to dispose of the petition in the foregoing background.
- It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that to put criminal law into motion in a casual manner by a litigant, the same is to be viewed seriously and not to encourage such attempt. The case on hand has, no doubt, a disheartened element under which rift has emerged between husband and wife, but to ventilate the said grievance of respondent No. 1 by way of putting criminal law in motion by filing such a casual complaint, the said attempt appears to be not genuine and therefore, it is noticed by the Court that the same is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the background of the aforesaid fact and considering the averments of the complaint and contention raised by the respective parties the Court is of the opinion that to allow the complaint to precipitate further would tantamount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the complaint in question, viz. C.R. No. I-86 of 2013 dated 03.05.2013 registered at Gandhidham-A Police Station, Bhuj-Kachchh for the offence punishable under section 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. It is needless to say that the Court has examined the complaint only in view of the a particular offence under sections 498A and 115 of the IPC and therefore, without expressing any opinion with respect to other aspects about the dispute between the applicants and respondent No. 1 herein, the present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Harshad Dolatram Geariya and Ors. vs. Heenaben Harshadbhai Geraiya and Ors. (22.07.2016 – GUJHC) : MANU/GJ/1245/2016
498A filed as a counterblast to divorce proceedings.
ow, we revert back to the allegations made in the complaint Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. Few facts have to be noticed before we look into the allegations made in the complaint in the above regard. The complaint has been filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar on 10.05.2015, before which date, the petition for divorce has already been filed by Nayan Chopra on 23.10.2014 before the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan. It is on the record that at the time of filing of the complaint Vanishka Bobal was living at Canada whereas Nayan Chopra was living at U.S.A. Both were separately living. It was pleaded in the application for divorce that husband and wife had separated on or around November, 2013. It is on the record that on the day criminal complaint was filed on 10.05.2015 in the Court of C.J.M. Gautam Budh Nagar by Respondent No. 2, neither Vanishka was in India nor she was in India at the time when statements were recorded in complaint of complainant as well as his two witnesses. The complaint is not by Vanishka but it has been filed by father of Vanishka, Respondent No. 2. In the divorce application filed in the State of Michigan, Vanishka Bobal was represented by her attorney. The divorce was granted with orders relating to alimony, pension benefits and retirement benefits, life insurance, property settlement and provision in lieu of dower, mutual release of claims and other aspects on 24.02.2016.
- There is nothing on the record to indicate that orders of divorce between the parties was brought into the notice of the Magistrate when he issued process against the Appellants. We, however, are in agreement with the submission of Shri Santosh Krishan that decree of divorce between Nayan Chopra and Vanshika shall not wipe out any criminal offence, which has been committed within the meaning of Indian Penal Code or D.P. Act and the criminal offence committed in jurisdictional court has to be examined despite the divorce decree having been granted.
- Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the Appellants for offence Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint Under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.
Rashmi Chopra and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (30.04.2019 – SC) : MANU/SC/0625/2019