{"id":15520,"date":"2021-01-08T12:24:22","date_gmt":"2021-01-08T06:54:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=15520"},"modified":"2021-01-08T12:25:51","modified_gmt":"2021-01-08T06:55:51","slug":"515-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/515-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"No material evidence 498A against Parents quashed"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/strong>
\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.515\/2019
\n(@ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.180\/2019)<\/p>\n

Machindra & Anr. \u2026Appellant(s)<\/p>\n

VERSUS<\/p>\n

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. \u2026Respondent(s)<\/p>\n

ORDER
\n1. Leave granted.<\/p>\n

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 \u2013 complainant.<\/p>\n

3. This Appeal, by way of Special Leave Petition, is filed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court rejected the appellants\u2019 criminal application to quash criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 \u2013 complainant herein under the Domestic Signature Not Verified Violence Act and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and\u00a034 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that they have harassed her for dowry.<\/p>\n

4. This Court, on 03.01.2019, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as against the husband, issued limited notice to the respondents, and stayed further proceedings in Case RCC No. 152 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur District, Latur.<\/p>\n

5. The counsel for the appellants contended that the allegations in the complaint are not substantiated and thus, the criminal proceedings emanating out of it deserve to be quashed. Further, it was contended that respondent no. 2\u00ad complainant\u2019s marriage with the son of the appellants was a second marriage, and before entering into the said marriage, the complainant had not taken any decree of divorce from her previous husband. It was also alleged that respondent no. 2\u00ad complainant had made similar allegations against her first husband and his family.<\/p>\n

6. We have perused the complaint filed by the complainant in which it has been stated that the father\u00ad in\u00ad law and mother\u00ad in\u00ad law have abused her verbally and demanded dowry. However, except these allegations in the complaint, there is no other substance in the complaint or any material evidence available on record to substantiate the same.<\/p>\n

7. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that they are aged 66 and 60 years respectively.<\/p>\n

8. Taking into consideration the above background of the case, and in view of non\u00adavailability of any material to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where charges against the appellants, i.e., father\u00adin\u00adlaw and mother\u00adin\u00adlaw of respondent no. 2\u00ad complainant, can be quashed.<\/p>\n

We therefore quash the proceedings against the appellants. Stay granted by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2019 stands vacated and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.<\/p>\n

9. The appeal is allowed in the afore\u00adstated terms.<\/p>\n

J (N.V. RAMANA)
\nJ (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
\nNEW DELHI;<\/p>\n

MARCH 15, 2019.<\/p>\n

ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A<\/p>\n

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A<\/strong>
\nRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS<\/p>\n

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 180\/2019<\/p>\n

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-06-2018 in CRLA No. 1977\/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad) MACHINDRA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA 177545\/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C\/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA 177547\/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 15-03-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :<\/p>\n

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
\nFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Mr. Nishant, Adv.
\nFor Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Adv.<\/p>\n

Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Shrikant R. Deshmukh, Adv.<\/p>\n

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.<\/p>\n

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed of.<\/p>\n

(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
\nCOURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.515\/2019 (@ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.180\/2019) Machindra & Anr. \u2026Appellant(s)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[258,76546,73832,73836,73834,76547,73829,73833,76548,76397,2186,57085,50412,259,260,54863,68426,43761,68162,84272,120,85855,21909,84273,121,54617,54246,4319,85856,57130],"class_list":["post-15520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-258","tag-498a-304b-ipc","tag-498a-306-ipc","tag-498a-307-ipc","tag-498a-323-506-ipc","tag-498a-323-506-ipc-in-hindi","tag-498a-34-ipc","tag-498a-34-ipc-in-hindi","tag-498a-406-506-ipc","tag-498a-406-ipc","tag-498a-advice","tag-498a-citation","tag-498a-judgment","tag-259","tag-260","tag-65-b","tag-65-b-certificate","tag-65b","tag-65b-certificate","tag-65b-evidence-act","tag-alimony","tag-demanded-dowry","tag-material-evidence","tag-mens-movement-india","tag-mens-rights","tag-mohan-m-shantanagoudar","tag-n-v-ramana","tag-sections-498a","tag-stay-granted","tag-victims-of-498a"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15520"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15520\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}