MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Landmark rulings on Section 498A IPC

A. Andhra Pradesh High Court : Bench: justice G. YETHIRAJULU. Kalaparthy Ranjit Kumar vs The state of A.P. REP. BY the on date 26/05/2007 – Jurisdiction explained in criminal offences. 498A quashed on jurisdiction.

B. Punjab & Haryana High Court : Crl. Misc. M- 32351 of 2016 (O&M) Eashan Joshi vs Suman Date of Decision: January 23, 2018 – Petitioner challenged that the Complaint is without jurisdiction. High Court thus with its vast inherent powers would be able to entertain the petition for quashing to ensure there is no abuse of process of law.

C. Madya Pradesh High Court :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA Misc. Criminal Case No. 3658 OF 2016. Sandeep Singh Bais@ Anshu & ors. Vs State of MP & Anr. General, vague and omnibus allegations can not be treated as sufficient material to send other relatives of husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with family affairs of complainant – Complainant has not only made Vague allocations against applicants, but she went to extent of assassinating character..

D. Allahabad High Court : justice. Vinod prasad Rubi & Ors. Vs State of Up & Anr. ON 16 march 2007 . Cruelty, dowry demand – summoning of younger members of family, unjustified. At stage of summoning it is not law that even younger members of family be also summoned to stand trial along with elder even though no specific allegations made against them and their complicity in crime prima facie mala fide and porposive – leveling general allegations against all family members including unmarried younger girls and boys without specification is practice to be curbed because it will amount to great injustice to ask unmarried younger daughters and brothers to stand trial only because of their relationship with Husband.

See also  Divorce : Filing False case of 498a IPC on husband is Cruelty.

E. Supreme court of India.:CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2009[Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1793of 2008]Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors Allegations contained in FIR made with an ulterior motive to harass appellants. Continuance of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of Court.

F. Supreme court of India :CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1674 OF 2012(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10547/2010)Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs State of Up & Anr. Quashing of cognizance order – general allegation of physical and mental torture in FIR – Mere casual reference of names of appellants in FIR without allegation of active involvement in matrimonial dispute would not justify taking cognizance against

G. Supreme court of India :DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/2005 Writ Petition (civil) 141 of 2005Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India Misuse of 498A is legal terrorism. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment.

H. Allahabad High Court : Criminal Misc. application No. 10090 of 2011 Amit Garg & Ors. Vs State of Up & Anr. Hurt, cruelty, criminal intimidation, dowry demand – Quashing of charge sheet – CJM took cognizance but not Persued the charge sheet and Persued order in a casual manner – he has not applied his judicial mind – Impugned order is illegal and set aside.

I. Allahabad High Court : APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 25300 of 2012Umesh@Banti & Ors. Vs State of Up & Anr. Allegations made in FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on basis of which it is not possible to proceed against accused person. Criminal proceedings Quashed.

See also  Whether maintenance granted U/S 125 of CRPC will be superseded if maintenance is granted U/S 24 of HMA?

J. Madhya Pradesh High Court : Deepak Shukla vs Mahendra Chanpuriya on 31 August, 2001 Equivalent citations: II (2002) DMC 161 Deepak Shukla vs Mahendra chanpuriya Cruelty for demand of dowry alleged to be made on 1.6.1993. , Complaints filed three years of date 1.6.1993, Barred by limitations: Allegations regarding demand of dowry figment of imagination: Complaint filed by complainant more than three years after filling of divorce petition by petitioner against respondent: Continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioner, abuse of process of Court. Proceedings Quashed.

K. Patna High Court : Santosh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 06 October, 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Criminal Miscellaneous No.41318 of 2016 .no specific instances of alleged torture or cruelty with exact date and time as also location furnished. General and bald statement of victim being subjected to torture and cruelty as also assualt has been made. Instant Complaint is by way of counterblast to divorce case filed by petitioner which eventually was decreed and first appeal preferred there against before Allahabad HC was dismissed.

L. Jharkhand High Court :BENCH : justic A.Sahay : Radhe Raman Naik and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand. On 04 जुलाई 2007 . Alleged occurance of offence took place out side of territorial jurisdiction. The criminal prosecution/ proceedings can not continue.

M. Punjab-haryana HC : LAWS(P&H)-2007-3-22 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Decided on March 30,2007 Shanti Devi vs State of Haryana Allegations appear to be totally vague. Not clear from complaint as to when alleged article or money demanded or misappropriated or given to bride or bridegroom during marriage. Nothing to show prima facie that those articles dishonesty kept by other family members or they declined to return same. Criminal case prima facie baseless, false and frivolous against mother in law, brother in law and his wife. Complaint qua Quashed.

See also  DV and Section 125 cannt be filed on Same Grounds

N. Jharkhand High Court: Hamidan Khatoon And Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 28 April, 2004 Equivalent citations: 2004 CriLJ 3626, I (2005) DMC 449. FIR lodged with ulterior motive by way of causing harassment. It’s continuance will be abuse of process of Court. Criminal proceedings Quashed.

O. Allahabad High Court : BENCH HONE. BHANWAR SINGH J, HONE. J.M. Paliwal J:. Raj Yadav vs Dr. LP Mishra. On 10 जनवरी 2006. FIR Quashed against all family members as wife fabricated well-documented story in the FIR

P. Punjab-Haryana High Court : Devi Lal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 1992 Equivalent citations: I (1993) DMC 95. Vague allocations, improvement in witness statements. Quashed.

Q. Punjab & Haryana High Court : Banch justice J.B. GARG DECIDED ON 02 दिसम्बर 1993 : Satish Kumar gogia & others vs State of Haryana & another Brother of husband arraigned as accused without substance – FIR Quashed a qua them.

R. Rajasthan High Court : Moka Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 2 June, 2000 Equivalent citations: I (2001) DMC 227 . Cognizance of offence taken on vague statement recorded by investigation officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of police. No specific allegations against petitioner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Petition eFiling in the Supreme Court of India
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation