Nitish Banka

    • 498A QUASHING JUDGEMENTS FROM 2020 TO 2022.

    Here, are the 6 latest judgments of courts in which FIR registered under 498A got quashed due to presence of vague allegations and false charges against the husband and his family members.

    In case of Kamlesh Kalra and Ors. vs. Shilpika Kalra and Ors. (24.04.2020 – SC) court are of the opinion that the allegations of the complainant wife with regard to non-return of the Stridhan articles and the charges Under Section 406 against the husband and his relatives are not sustainable in law. It clearly appears that the filing of the criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant wife against her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, which is clearly an abuse of the process of Court, and is liable to be quashed in toto.

    In case of Kahkashan Kausar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (08.02.2022 – SC)  wife has  instituted a criminal complaint against her husband and his relatives alleging demand for dowry and harassment. Court took cognizance for the offense under Section 498A, 323 Indian Penal Code against the husband and issued summons. This dispute was eventually resolved and subsequently, a another written complaint for registration of FIR against her husband and the Appellants herein alleging Accused of pressurizing the Respondent wife to purchase a car as dowry, and threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy if the demands were not met. Aggrieved, the Husband and relatives sought quashing of FIR which was dismissed vide impugned judgment by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal in Supreme Court of India.

    Held, while allowing the Appeal SC stated that-

    Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the Accused. Court by way of its judgments has been warned from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

    Upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that general allegations are leveled against the relatives.

    Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the Accused Appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. A criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the Accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

    In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order is set aside and FIR quashed in this matter.

    In case of Ravinder Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (03.01.2020 – HPHC) Present petition seeks quashing of FIR registered against petitioner for offences under Sections 498A, 354, 406 and 34 of IPC. The question is whether FIR impugned herein need to be quashed or not? Held, inherent power with High Court to quash criminal proceedings and FIR – Quashing allowed even in cases which are not compoundable. Power to quash to be exercised with great caution and sparingly. If allegations made are absurd, quashing justified. Where criminal proceeding manifestly attended with mala fide it must be set aside. In present case, no iota of averments or allegations to attract offences as alleged. Continuation of proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law. FIR qua present petitioner quashed and set aside.

    In case of Nitin Garg vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (06.01.2022 – ALLHC),  petiiton is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of IPC and Quashing of charge-sheet and stay of the criminal proceedings. Marriage of the victim solemnised with the applicant on 3.12.2003. Her allegation that accused persons attempted to commit rape upon her. Her husband tried to strangulate her on two occasions. Parties settled their matrimonial dispute before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 16.11.2018. Parties have mutually settled of their own free will and a decree under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been passed by the Principal Family Court. In view of the settlement and keeping the position of law in this regard cognizance order dated 7.11.2017 has been taken and FIR is quashedand petition for quashing is allowed by the court.

    In case of Gaurav Vij and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (07.09.2021 – DELHC) present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), for quashing of charges under Sections 498A, 306, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The question is whether present petition needs interference. Delhi High Court held that, allegation levelled in suicide note are vague. Petitioners at no time instigated, provoked deceased to commit suicide. Suicide note not capable of being viewed as material for offence. Section 107 IPC not satisfied therefore, no case made in section 306 IPC. Hence, FIR quashed in this matter and Petition is allowed.

    In case of Jaimeet Singh Kalra and Ors. vs. State and Ors. (02.06.2022 – DELHC), Criminal – petition is filed for Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Alleged offences punishable under sections 498A/406/376/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Parties living separately due to matrimonial differences and there Disputes settled by way of settlement. Whether in exercise of inherent powers subject FIR also pertaining for non-compoundable offences could be quashed? Court held that, extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. Power of compounding and quashing of criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent powers not equal or inter-changeable in law. Parties settled their disputes vide settlement and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and also endingtheir pending litigation. Lodging of FIR was outcome of matrimonial discord. In given facts and circumstances, there is remote and bleak possibility of conviction. Petition accordingly allowed and subject FIR quashed.