When Judges should not quash prosecution U/S 498A of IPC?

The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s. Monica and others MANU/SC/0105/2014 : 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 442 while explaining the scope of Section 498A and exercise of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code in paras 8, 9 and 10 held thus:-

"8. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the appellants has urged that the statements/averments made in the complaint petition, even if taken to be correct, do not make out any offence against any of the accused appellants either under Sections 498A or 406 of the Penal Code, as alleged. Shri Sharan has laid stress on the fact that there is no averment in the complaint petition with regard to any demand for dowry by the appellants; or of any ill-treatment of the respondent by the appellants or commission of any act in connection with any such demand which could amount to 'Cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. Shri Sharan has also urged that no where in the complaint petition entrustment within the meaning of Section 405 of the Penal Code has been alleged against the appellants so as to even prima facie make the appellants liable for the offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
9. We disagree. 'Cruelty' as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A of the Penal Code has a twofold meaning. The contentions of Shri Sharan do not deal with the Explanation (a) and is exclusively confined to the meaning dealt with by Explanation (b). Under Explanation (a) conduct which is likely to cause injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) would come within the meaning of the expression 'Cruelty'. While instances of physical torture would be plainly evident from the pleadings, conduct which has caused or is likely to cause mental injury would be far more subtle. Having given our anxious consideration to the averments made in the complaint petition, we are of the view that the statements made in the relevant paragraphs of the complaint can be understood as containing allegations of mental cruelty to the complainant. The complaint, therefore, cannot be rejected at the threshold.

10. The facts, as alleged, therefore will have to be proved which only be done in the course of a regular trial. It is wholly unnecessary for us to embark upon a discourse as regards the scope and ambit of the Court's power to quash a criminal proceeding. Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence.

Equivalent Citation: 2015(4)BomCR(Cri)558,2016 ALLMR(cri)980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 1684 of 2014

Decided On: 20.07.2015

Appellants: Muzhir Ahmed Itbar Khan and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.S. Shinde and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.

Print Page

When prosecution against relative of husband U/S 498 of IPC can be quashed?

Equivalent Citation: 2013ALLMR(Cri)4288, 2014(3)BomCR(Cri)84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Application Nos. 2286 of 2010 and 4390 of 2012

Decided On: 03.10.2013

Appellants: Milind
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:K.U. Chandiwal and A.I.S. Cheema, JJ.

Criminal - Charge Sheet - Legality thereof - Challenged - Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Present application filed to challenge legality of charge-sheet - Whether proceedings against Applicant liable to be quashed - Held, proceedings under Section 498A of I.P.C. were brazenly used to corner Applicant since he was already employed person, enjoying position as Judge - None of statements of witnesses specifically referred any demand by Applicant - No sufficient evidence to show demand of money by Applicant - Therefore, prosecution, qua Applicant was quashed and set aside - Application allowed.

Print Page

When offence of cruelty U/S 498A of IPC can not be said to be continuing offence?

Criminal - Territorial jurisdiction - Validity of - Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 178 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Present appeal filed against order whereby High court held that First Information Report for offence under Section 498A of Code lodged by Respondent was liable to be tried by Court at place where wife's parents resided, which had jurisdiction to try offence - Whether impugned order of territorial jurisdiction of Court at wife's native place to try offence alleged against Appellants was maintainable - Held, offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Section 178 of Code - From FIR it was found that all incidents alleged by complainant in respect of alleged cruelty were said to have occurred at place where both Appellant and his wife resided after marriage - High Court was not right in holding that in present case mental cruelty inflicted upon Respondent "continued unabated" on account of no effort made by Appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and threats given by Appellants over telephone - High Court did not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding threats said to have been given by Appellants over telephone - Thus, going by complaint, it could not be held that Court at wife's native place had jurisdiction to try offence since appropriate Court at place where both Appellant and his wife resided after marriage would have jurisdiction to try said offence - Accordingly, impugned order of High court was set aside - Appeal allowed. [paras 7 and 8]

Equivalent Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)4502,  I(2015)DMC126SC, 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2009

Decided On: 04.08.2014

 Amarendu Jyoti  Vs. State of Chattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.J. Mukhopadhaya and S.A. Bobde, JJ.

Print Page

Whether son can claim right to reside in self acquired house of father against his wish?

What is the right of respondent No. 7
and his family members to insist on occupying a
portion of the house of appellant No.1 especially
when the sale-deed is registered in the name of
appellant No.1 in his individual name? Merely stating
that it is a joint Hindu family property would not
suffice. In order to establish that the property

belongs to joint family, it must be established that a
joint family had a sufficient nucleus at the time of its
acquisition. (P. S. Sairam and another V. P.S.Rama (P. S. Sairam and another V. P.S.Rama
Rao Pisey and others (2004) 11 SCC 320). Leave Rao Pisey and others (2004) 11 SCC 320)
aside the corpus, it is not even alleged that the funds
other than the individual funds of appellant No.1
were utilized to purchase the plot at Chandigarh.
Respondent No. 7 could not have even alleged so as
he actually received a self acquired plot at
Panchkula from appellant No.1 by way of gift while
daughters of appellant No.1 received one plot each
in Karnal. Other than the oblique motive to grab the
property at Chandigarh and keep possession of the
same against the wishes of the owner, there can be
no other reason. In fact, it was quite clear during the
course of arguments that not only respondent No. 7
wants to deprive the appellant No.1 to deal with his
property as per his wishes but wanted to grab the
whole property for himself denying the share of his
sisters.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 27152 of 2015
Date of Decision : 23.12.2015
Prem Kumar .
Versus
Krishan Kumar Sharma and others .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

Print Page