When prosecution against in-laws of wife should not be quashed U/S 498A of IPC?

Upon hearing the parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the facts of this case are different from the facts of the case of Geeta Mahrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), relied by the applicants; that the applicant nos.3 to 5 are real brothers/sisters of husband of opposite party no.2, while applicant nos.1 and 2 are real uncle and aunt of opposite party no.2 and merely on the ground of their being uncle in-laws, Dewars and Nanads, they may not take any advantage of the law laid down therein. It is pertinent to mention that in above case, the question of inherent jurisdiction was involved and the applicants though have also raised the question of jurisdiction but in view of the facts apparent on the face of the records and mentioned in divorce petition filed against opposite party no.2 (copy at Annexure No.3), the above plea does not lie in the mouth of applicants as in above petition, it has been specifically mentioned that the parties are residents of Varanasi and until and unless any cogent evidence is produced otherwise, during trial the above averments of applicants are not sufficient for quashing the charge sheet. The applicants may not take contradictory plea about jurisdiction for avoiding their prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that specific allegations have been made against the applicants and there appears no illegality in the impugned order of cognizance of the Magistrate upon submission of charge sheet. It will not be correct to say that the impugned order of cognizance is bad for want of application of mind by the Magistrate. It is also pertinent to mention that upon further investigation charge sheet has not been filed against co-accused Jagdish Sharma.

In view of the discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show any sufficient cause for quashing the impugned charge sheet as well as cognizance order. 

Allahabad High Court

Awdhesh Sharma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 28 May, 2015

Bench: Harsh Kumar

Citation;2016 CRLJ(NOC)64 ALL

Print Page

When proceeding under domestic violence Act is tenable against IN-Laws without making husband party to said proceeding ?

                                                
In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that a

proceeding against the relative of the husband is perfectly


maintainable without the husband being in the party array and

without any relief being sought against him, if it falls within

proviso of Section 2(q). Reference is answered accordingly.
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL  B.RADHAKRISHNAN

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

        WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015

                    Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 328 of 2013 ()
                    
       KUNJATHIRI,AGED 82,
      Vs

          STATE OF KERALA,
       
     

Print Page