what if any one gives false information to the police ?

See. 177 IPC. Furnishing false information
'Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.' or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commis- sion of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the cornmis- sion.of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with im prisonment of either descriptionfor a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".

Sec. 182 IPC: "False information with intent to cause public servant to use his power to the injury of another person.
'Whoever gives to any public servant any inforrnation which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state offacts respecting which such infor- mation is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person.
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or u,,ith fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or u7ith both.

Sec.211 IPC: False charge of offence made with intent to injure.

'Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, Institutes or causes to be instituted any criminalproceeding against thatperson, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is nojust or lawful groundfor suchproceeding or charge against thatperson, shall be punished u7ith imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or udthfzne, or with both.
And if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonrnentfor life or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine'.

What to do when false stridhan list submitted ?

Engagement gifts are not dowry.

Police has produced fake bills in the Challan submitted to Court. These bills were given by my in-laws. The charges has not been framed yet by the Court. We submitted complaints to Sales Tax Dept. regarding these complaint and they conducted investigations and found these bills to be BOGUS, the bills were regarding jewellery and electronics items tuning to lakhs of rupees. To save them from facing actions, the dealers have given statements that they have not issued these bills and the name of the person mentioned in the bills misued their letter head and bill books. The name on the bills is of my wife. I will also be getting Income Tax investigation report in few days.

Please suggest regarding filing of case under Crpc 340 read with IPC 191 to 196 for perjury and giving false n fabricated docs to the court and IPC 383 to 389 for extortion. Should I file this case in my jurisdiction or the jurisdiction where challan has been presented and is it the right time to file the case now or should I wait for some time. The quashing of FIR is pending the HC and I will def. be using these reports over there.

**************
Distinction between “Dowry and “Stridhan”.
There appears to be a certain amount of confusion over the terms “dowry” and “Stridhan”. “Stridhan” as a concept of Hindu law has arisen from the concept of “Varadakshina” which is associated with an approved Hindu marriage practice of “Kanyadaan”. Kanyadaan being the gifts which the father of the bride gives to the father of the groom. “Varadakshina” was the presents in cash or kind which were to be given to the bridegroom. Both kanyadaan and varadakshina were considered meritorious acts and were voluntary in nature. Presents, given to the daughter on the occasion of the marriage constituted her “Stridhan” i.e. her separate property.
The term “Stridhan” literally means the “woman’s property”. According to the Smritika, the Stridhan constituted those properties which she received by way of gifts from her relatives, which included mostly movable property such as ornaments, jewellery, dresses. Sometimes even land or property or even houses were given as gifts. The purpose behind deeming properties as “Stridhan” was to ensure that  The woman had full right over its disposal or alienation. On her death, all types of Stridhan, devolved upon her heirs.
The husband of the woman had the limited power to use or alienate the “Stridhan” and that too only in cases of distress or emergency and even in such cases, he was obligated to return the same once the emergency period was tided over. Thus the conclusion is that all types of Stridhan are properties given to her by way of gifts and without any “demand, coercion, undue influence or even pressure”.However in the past there have been a catena of cases where the distinction between dowry and Stridhan has been misunderstood .In the case of Kailash Vati v. Ayodhya Prakash2 Chief Justice Sandhawalia, while recognizing the distinction between stridhan and dowry, used both the words interchangeably as if one meant the other .He opined as follows:
“The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 does not bar traditional giving of presents at or about the time of wedding . Thus such presents or dowry given by the parents is therefore not at all within the definition of the statute”.
He further went on to state that:
“Law as it stands today visualizes a complete and full ownership of her individual property by a Hindu wife and in this context the factum of marriage is of little or not relevance and she can own and possess property in the same manner as a Hindu male …Once it is held that a Hindu wife can own property in her own right , then it is purely a question of fact whether the
dowry or traditional presents given to her, were to be individually owned by her or had been gifted to the husband alone…..Once it is found that as a fact that these articles of dowry were so given to her individually and in her own right , then I am unable to see how the mere factum of marriage would alter any such property right and divest her of ownership either totally or partially”.
Here the presumption is that whatever property the bride receives as “gifts” stays under her control in the matrimonial home and that she can share it with her husband or the rest of the family by exercising her discretion. This is contrary to what happens in reality where the bride does not have any control over her belongings or her essentials.
It was only in the case of Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar3 the Supreme Court tried to arrive at a definition of “Stridhan” by enlisting the following exchanges as constituting stridhan


(ii) gifts made before the nuptial fire
(iii) gifts made at the bridal procession, i.e. while the bride is being led from her residence of her parents to that of her husband.
(iv) Gifts made in token of love, that is, those made by her father-in-law and mother-in-law and those made at the time of the bride making obeisance at the feet of elders.
(v) Gifts made by the father of the bride
(vi) Gifts made by the mother of the bride
(vii) Gifts made by the brother of the bride.
The judgment further clarified that 3 AIR 1985 S.C 628 “The Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhan property and can deal with it in any manner she likes .Ordinarily the husband has no right or interest in it with the sole exception that in times or extreme distress but he is morally bound to restore it or its value when he is able to do so”
Fazl Ali J further observed that
“I am amazed to find that so deeply drowned and inherently are some of the High Courts concept of matrimonial home qua Stridhan property of married woman that they refuse to believe that such properties which were meant for exclusive use of the wife , could also be legally entrusted to the Husband and his relations. He specifically stated that the concept that the “Stridhan” of the woman becomes the Joint property of the two houses as soon as she enters her matrimonial house is in direct Contravention of Hindu law.”
The differentiation of the two terms is towards ensuring that in case of the future breakdown of marriage the woman can at least retrieve gifts received as Stridhan. Thus even if at the time of marriage or during the marriage “gifts” should be given under the cover of “Stridhan” so that she will at least have a right to claim them back.
****************
After 1956: Stridhan :The majority of sages and commentators have no definition for stridhan. Ornaments, jewellery, dresses or any movable gifts given by relations parents & husband side and also gifts given by strangers at time of marriage. Gift and bequests from relation, Gift and bequests from strangers . During coverture gifts are stridhan under husband control. These gifts can be given with the exception of immovable property. Any gifts given during maidenhood or widowhood constitutes her stridhan. Before 1956 property aquired by mechanical arts(Singing & Dancing) or self exertion upon death of husband constituted her stridhan according to Mithila and Bengal schools of Hindu Law. All other schools also it constituted her stridhan immediately.
Property purchased with savings or accumulations of stridhan is stridhan. Under compromise it constitutes her limited estate and gives up her stridhan under arrangement or compromise. If she accumulates by adverse possession it constitutes her stridhan. Maintenance & property transferred to her by way of gift is stridhan. By inheritance if she succeeded to any immovable property, it is not her stridhan but constitutes her limited estate. Both from parents side as well as husband side.
When partition takes place under Mitakshara rule share obtained from partition is her limited estate or womans estate or widow estate (not stridhan) and she is absolute owner of property. On property acquired from Inheritance or partition she cannot ordinarily alienate the property or corpus and on her death it devolves to next heir. All other property except from partition or inheritance she has full rights to mortgage, exclusion and even put it in fire for all she cares.
Stridhan is classified into 2 types: 1. Gifts received from parents and in -laws out of love and affection. 2. All other gifts from strangers(Here husband has power to use this stridhan equally). On her death it passes to her heirs.
After 2005 Hindu Succession Act: Now she can claim for immovable property alongwith above also. She now has full powers to alienate property like the Karta of the family. She can do this in 3 situations. For fulfilling husbands funeral rites, legal necessaries, benefit of estate, gifts to brahmins to satisfy husband last rites, dispense of religious and moral duties. In all these cases only small portion can be alienated. Alienation made is not void but voidable if party affected and filed by party affected. Reversioner(Heirs) can file. Reversioner can sue for injunction or declaration(possession); after her death for nullity also.
A wife can by statutory substitution makes her get a part of her husbands co-parcenary property but doesnot entitle her to other co-parceners interests of joint family property. Dowry and gifts given during or at the time of marriage and thereafter is her stridhan and if she demands and doesnot get it back - she can take refuge in law which provides a relief. Check out Section 14 HSA and sub sections to know consequences.
The difference is taking, giving and abetting dowry is not a crime if done voluntarily and situation does not arise and differences amongst are merely words - but once a complaint is instituted that force or against will or pressure then her parents who have given dowry to her is not a crime (they can call it gift or presents w.r.t movable and immovable property). But husband & in-laws asking or demanding dowry(including gifts or presents or in any name) with an intention to coerce her and make an unlawful gain taking advantage of the relationship is a crime.
****************************
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) comes into force from 9th September, 2005. The Government of India has issued notification to this effect. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act is to remove gender discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and gives the following rights to daughters under Section 6:
-The daughter of a coparcener cell by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
-The daughter has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
-The daughter shall be subject to the same liability in the said coparcenary property as that of a son; and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparceners shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener;
-The daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
-The share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter;
-The share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter.
After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognize any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt.

********************

Get the list available with the people of South East Districts who all are accused in 498a and ask the same question again to initiate action again the police man.
Also file a complaint u/s 18 r/w secton 20 of RTI Act for furnishing false information .
You should also file a complaint to the Chief Justice Delhi High Court, Supreme Court and CM as I did that although the list was false but police ignored it and connived with wife.
**********************
Another mode of fighting this injustice and sham complaints for extortion:
Wife has submitted a list of stridhan which is not as per rule 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act and her application may be rejected in view of Circular no. 07/2007 and other she may be asked to furnish valid bills as well as cash flow details in view of para 7 of Circular no. 459-66/P.Sec/ Addl.CP/CAWC dated 29/03/2009.
Further updates are as follows :-
The application of Swamy was accepted by the CAW Cell on the same day with the help of 100 no. police officials and he was given stamped receiving of the his application as he called Police Control Room by dialing 100 no. and they helped him while the other victims of dowry harrassment witnessed and appreciated his courage outside CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi.
Now on the very next working day Swamy received a notice from CAW Cell, that he is requested to appear in CAW Cell for couselling. Earlier they said that you don't need to come here as we will registere FIR agains you to teach you lesson for consulting with lawyers.
Swamy has now also filed one RTI in CAW Cell requesting information within 48 hrs asking for details of complaint number, name of accused, FIR no. (if any) with certified copy. Reply is awaited.
Swamy has also filed one RTI to Police Control Room to provide certified copy of transcript, audio Recording and forms filled, dd entry of police official reached on spot from P.S. during his call made to Police Control Room , to be provided within 48 hrs.
Swamy has also been advised to file an application requesting action against wife for , forgery, extortion, conspiracy as she has claimed for 18 " TV and 220 Ltr. Fridge when Swamy having bills of 14 " TV and 190 Ltr. Fridge, bills were of date 3 days before marriage are are on the name of his wife.

Cheques and Balances SOME GYAN ON INCOME TAX

Cheques and Balances

Payments of Rs 20,000 or more must be by cheque; pay in cash and you could be in big trouble.
 
THE INCOME TAX ACT is not just an instrument with provisions for the levy and collection of tax. There are penalties involved, like in the case of loans and deposits above a certain amount that are taken or repaid in cash. This was because the taxman found that during raids, assessees often explained away unaccounted-for incomeas loans taken or deposits made with various people.
Some tax defaulters have been known to introduce unaccounted-for income in their books of account using benami names for loans and deposits. To counter this, the taxman introduced Section 269SS through Finance Act 1984.

When you take a loan
Effective 30 June 1984, Section 269SS debars taxpayers from ‘taking or accepting’ loans or deposits from any person otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft if the amount of either the loan or the deposit or the aggregate amount of the loan and deposit is Rs 20,000 or more. The exception: where the giver and the taker earn income only from agricultural activities and neither has any incomechargeable to tax.
It’s important here to understand the subtle distinction between a deposit and a loan. It’s true that in both cases, a debtor-creditor relationship exists between the person giving the money and the one receiving it. In the case of a deposit, however, a person deposits money for his own benefit, and earns interest from the party accepting the deposit. In the case of a loan, however, it is the borrower who needs the money, and so the lender may stand to gain in terms of interest on the loan that has been advanced.

When you repay a loan
This brings us to Section 269T that has been in effect since 11 July 1981. No banking company, co-operative bank, co-operative society, firm, person or any other company can ‘repay’ a loan or deposit otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in favour of the person who has made the loan or deposit if the amount of the loan or deposit, along with the interest payable, is Rs 20,000 or more.
This provision also applies where the aggregate amount of the loan or deposit, along with the interest payable, held by a person individually or jointly on the date of the repayment is together Rs 20,000 or more.
The exception: Section 269T provisions are not violated where a banking company or a co-operative bank credits the amount of the loan or deposit to the savings or current bank account of the person to whom the loan or deposit is to be repaid.
Exceptions to the rule  
The provisions do not apply in the case of loans/deposits taken or accepted by, or in the case of repayment of loans or deposits otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft to:

• The government;
• Any banking company, post office saving bank or co-operative bank;
• Any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act;
• Any government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;
• Any institution, association or body notified by the central government in the Official Gazette.

The price you pay for a default
Under section 271D and 271E, the Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax can impose a penalty equal to the amount of the loan or deposit taken or accepted in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS, or the amount of loan or deposit repaid in contravention of the provisions of Section 269T. For example, if a person takes a loan of Rs 40,000 in cash from his brother, he will be liable for a penalty of an equivalent amount. Similarly, an additional penalty of Rs 40,000 will be levied if the loan is also repaid in cash. The penalty for repayment in cash is independent of whether the loan was taken in cash.

Provisions for genuine transactions
The Income Tax Act makes exceptions where a person takes or repays a loan or deposit in cash for a ‘reasonable cause’. And so, the income tax authorities do not impose a penalty if it is proved to their satisfaction that a person had a genuine reason for not abiding by the requirements of the law and borrowing or repaying a loan in cash, instead of transacting through the cheques. For example, let’s say a family member suddenly falls ill and has to be rushed to hospital in the middle of the night. There, the hospital authorities refuse to admit the patient without an upfront payment of Rs 40,000. For lack of sufficient options, it may then be necessary to borrow an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 in cash to make the payment. This can be said to be a genuine case where a person is prevented by a reasonable cause to accept a loan by cheque.
The Hyderabad Tribunal too has ruled that Section 269SS has been introduced to curb the practice of explaining away unaccounted-for money; the provisions are not applicable to transactions that are conducted in an ‘open and genuine’  manner and where no unaccounted-for money is involved. If a transaction is genuine, then a mere technical breach of the provisions should not attract a penalty. The provisions, the Tribunal held, have been introduced to deal with cases involving evasion of tax. The legislative intent of curbing tax evasion does not mean that all loans or deposits are hit, but only those that are used by tax defaulters to cover up unexplained cash or unaccounted-for deposits. The Sections, according to the Tribunal, are definitely not intended to penalise genuine transactions, where no tax evasion is involved.
In another case, a building contractor was liable to be penalised for accepting and repaying loans/deposits from two lenders in cash. The genuineness of the transactions, however, was never in doubt, since the loans were accepted and repaid in cash due to discounting of the cheques, as also dishonouring of the cheques issued by the builder. The builder, as well as the lenders (from whom the cheques were discounted by the builder and to whom the payments were made in cash due to the fact that the builder’s repayment cheques were dishonoured), were also regular income tax assessees. Therefore, the transactions were deemed bona fide and genuine and no penalties were levied under Sections 271D and 271E for contravention of Sections 269SS and 269T.

Bottomline. The income tax department doesn’t hesitate to levy a penalty for any violation of the provisions of theIncome Tax Act. As a taxpayer, you are, therefore, advised to accept loans of Rs 20,000 or more only by cheque and repay them too only by cheque. Unless, of course, you have no choice but to opt for cash transactions. If that happens, make sure you have enough ‘reasonable cause’ to do so, and the transaction is duly accounted for.;

Filing Counter Cases

Dear Friends,
On my last post on FIR raised on 498a gang, I received lot of queries. Pls note the following:
If you have specific incidents of defamation done by someone against you, you can file a criminal case against them. This can be done at the police station or directly at the Magistrate court. You need 2 or 3 witnesses who will come to the station or court and confirm the defamation which they have seen or heard.
In my case, the opposite party had called up lot of my neighbors and relatives and gave a very bad and tainted version of the story which caused lot of damage to my social life. They also called my church members and leaders and defamed me. Additional to that, they used the media and internet to spread their slanderous stories.
One of her accomplices attempted to manhandle me. So I included his name and added section 307 (attempt to murder).
I approached the JFM Court of our area and filed a Criminal Misc Petition. Magistrate forwarded the petition to my area police station to “enquire and report”. At this stage, you take the police into confidence and get the FIR registered. Since it is an order from the court, they have to do it. They will include all the sections you have mentioned in your petition. Try to add as much as sections to make the case as strong. But you will have to explain how those sections are applicable. You will need a lawyer to present the case and get it admitted at the court. Once FIR is registered, police will do their usual investigation work. They can scare the opposite parties of arrest as you have faced during your 498A initial stages. You have to ensure that opposite party don’t escape from charge sheet by bribing police. The threat of arrest can be given to all those bystanders and supporters who are coming forward to give witness against you. You will basically eliminate all such jokers from the play and only the heroine and her parents will remain on stage. I shall upload the petition in one of our 498A blogs soon. But you will have to customize it to your situation adding lot of real incidents happened to support your case. I don’t encourage false cases to be filed. But if you think, you are defamed by the ex-wife and you have incidents or witnesses to support your cause, you can file defamation cases.
Defamation cases are of 2 types:

1. Civil defamation where you will claim monetary compensation.
2. Criminal defamation where you will seek punishment to the offenders.

I don’t think these cases will win ultimately and anyone will fight it till end BUT these weapons can scare the opposite side and her supporters and eventually force them to come for a Divorce and withdrawal of all cases against you. While you file counter cases, the enemy has to protect themselves rather than attacking you. As such their attention gets diverted and you get some breathing time.
Other extrajudicial weapons that can be used is Tax Evasion Petition at the Income Tax Commissioner and also at the Commercial Taxes Commissioner (state) if the other side has any shops or businesses. If FIL or MIL are govt employees, approach their offices if they have said anywhere of giving dowry. Use RTI to get information. You can also file DP3 against the in-laws if they said anywhere on oath that dowry was given.

Advocates act – Professional misconduct ,Moral turpitude

By Law India and Rajesh Vakharia in Fight Against Misuse Of 498a Law (Files) · Edit Doc

Bench: S Agrawal, S V Manohar

PETITIONER:V.P. KUMARAVELU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,NEW DELHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/1997
BENCH:S.C. AGRAWAL, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997

Present:Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal / Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advs. for the appellant A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur and V. Krishnamurthy, Advs. for the Respondent Nos. 2-3

J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.

These appeals arise from a common order dated 15.5.1986 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.I.T. Case Nos.48 and 49 of 1985. These two cases pertain to the appellant and were transferred to the appellant and were transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under the provisions of Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu could not dispose of these cases within the prescribed period of one year. On or about 21st of October, 1978, the appellant was appointed as City Government Pleader in all the Civil Courts constituted in Madras other than the High Court of Madras. The work was spread over several courts in Madras and the appellant as the city Government Pleader was required to conduct all the civil matters pending in the civil courts of Madras except the High Court, on behalf of the Government and also to give his opinion on these matters from time to time when required. The appellant was allowed the assistance of juniors who were not appointed by the Government. The respondent was provided with staff.

The first complaint which was filed by the Commission and Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu against the appellant before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu bearing D.C. Case No. 48/1985 was in respect of Suit No.400 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras. The Government Pleader was instructed to appear on behalf of the State Government in that case. The Memo of Appearance had been filed by the earlier Government Pleader. The records of the case had been sent to the Office of the Government Pleader and he had also been asked to prepare a written statement. However, when the appellant was appointed as Government Pleader, a fresh Memo of Appearance on his behalf had not been filed in the said suit nor were the papers put up before him. As a result, on 28.6.1979, the suit was decreed ex parte against the State. An application was thereafter moved by the appellant to set aside the ex parte order. The court set aside the ex parte order on condition that the Government should pay Rs.20/- as costs. However, the cost was not deposited. As a result the application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed on 27-9-1979. Consequently the suit was decreed ex parte with costs.

This suit had been filed by the Travancore Textiles Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Tamil Nadu relating to a lease of land admeasuring 1240 sq.ft. forming part of a channel. The plaintiff had prayed for a declaration that the annual rent of Rs.3609.66 as also the Municipal taxes levied were illegal. The plaintiff had also made a prayer for refund of Rs.25,575.40 with interest at the rate 12% p.a. and for a further declaration that he need not pay any rent after 30.6.1974. The complainant alleged that as a result of the gross negligence on the part of the appellant the Government of Tamil Nadu had suffered substantial loss. The appellant contended that since the office staff had not put up the papers of this case before him, it was through inadvertence that the suit was decreed ex parte. The Bar Council of India has, however, noted that at the time when an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed the appellant must have known about the pendency of the case, and the serious consequences that would follow if the order for payment of costs were not complied with. The Bar Council has held that for this lapse the appellant cannot raise the plea that the staff was negligent. Now, although the application for setting aside the ex parte order is filed by the appellant, it is not clear from the record whether the appellant had personally appeared in court for setting aside the ex parte order or was personally aware of or was appraised of the order of costs which had been while setting aside the ex parte order. In fact, the Bar Council of India has noted mitigating circumstance which go to show that blame cannot be attached solely to the appellant. It has noted that from the correspondence which is brought on record, it is clear that at no point of time the papers pertaining to the case were placed before the appellant except for moving an application for setting aside the ex parte order. It is also not known whether the application was actually moved by the appellant himself or through a junior. It is not clear whether the order which was passed on this application for payment of costs was brought to the notice of the appellant either. The Bar Council has also noted that after the summons in the case was served on the State of Tamil Nadu through the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu in June 1978, a letter was sent on 27th of June, 1978 by the then Government Pleader. Thereafter the Collector of Madras vide his letter dated 20th of September, 1978, sent details and office remarks on the plaintiff’s claim. At this time the appellant was not Government Pleader. These papers were received by his predecessor who made an endorsement on the letter of the Collector of Madras to the effect that remarks/statements be prepared. It is also not clear to whom this matter was assigned.

According to the distribution of work, copy of which has been placed on record by the appellant, it was the duty of G. Jagannathan, the then Assistant to submit the records of the case of the City Government Pleader for preparation of the written statement. In the letter addressed by the Collector of Madras he had directed the Executive Deputy Tehsildar, Egmore to meet the Government advocate with the concerned file and to render necessary assistance in preparing the draft written statement. But it appears that no one attended the office of the Government Pleader with the concerned file for preparing the written statement.
After the appellant took charge as the Government Pleader, he had also notified that representatives of the departments of the Government should remain present personally with files on various dates of hearing so that suitable instruction can be made available to the Government Pleader for conducting the case. But this instruction also does not seem to have been followed. It is in these circumstances that the case of the State went unrepresented. The Bar Council has said that the office staff of the appellant was also responsible for misleading the appellant and keeping him in the dark. The Government also did not care to depute a responsible officer to attend the office of the Government Pleader.

After noting these circumstance the Bar Council of India has imposed a “lighter” punishment of severe reprimand after noting that the appellant is a fairly senior advocate in the State of Tamil Nadu and has a good reputation and a good standing at the Bar.

The next complaint No.17 of 1984 is in respect of a suit filed by an employee of the Directorate of Education of the State of Tamil Nadu challenging his date of birth. Summons was forwarded to the appellant along with a letter date 24.9.1979 informing him that the date of hearing in the case was 10.10.1979. There is an endoresment made by the office of the Government Pleader on that letter. Thereafter another letter of 25.9.1979 was received by the office of the Government Pleader from the Directorate of Education, Madras on which an endorsement was made, “remarks/written statement to be prepared”. These remarks are in the same handwriting in which the endoresment on the previous letter is made. However, no memorandum for appearance was filed in that suit on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu. On 26.10.1979 an ex parte decree came to be passed in that suit.

The appellant has contended that the office had not put up these papers before him. Therefore, there had been a lapse in attending to this case. Here also the Bar Council of India has accepted that there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the appellant. His only lapse was not to have kept the office in order. The Bar Council has held, “It may be that due to rush of work office might have kept him in dark and the papers might not have been put up……”. The finding against the appellant, therefore, is that he was not able to control his office on account of rush of work and also because the staff which was allotted to him had been negligent in the performance of its duties and had not put up the papers in the concerned cases before him to enable him to take appropriate action. The appellant has been held guilty of “constructive negligence”, and the Bar Council of India has reprimanded him.

Looking to all the circumstances the appellant was negligent as he had failed to attend to the two cases. His client had to suffer ex parte decrees. There is, however, no finding of any mala fides on the part of the appellant or any deliberate inaction on his part in not attending to the two cases. Will his negligence or “constructive negligence” as the respondent-Bar Council puts it, amount to professional misconduct? Whether negligence will amount to professional misconduct or not will depend upon the facts of each case. Gross negligence in the discharge of duties partakes of shades of delinquency and would undoubtedly amount to professional misconduct. Similarly, conduct which amounts to dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client or towards his case would amount to professional misconduct. But negligence without moral turpitude or delinquency may not amount to professional misconduct. In the case of In re a vakil (1926 ILR 49 Mad. 523), Coutts Trotter, C.J., said, “negligence by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency.

 Of that there is no suggestion here, and we are, therefore, able to say that there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr.M.” In the case of P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 110 at 113), this Court said, “There is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct………..For and advocate to act towards his client otherwise than with utmost good faith is unprofessional. When an advocate is entrusted with a brief he is expected to follow norms of professional ethics and try to protect interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. Counsel’s paramount duty is to the client. When a person consults a lawyer for his advice he relies upon his requisite experience, skill and knowledge as a lawyer and the lawyer is expected to give proper and dispassionate legal advice to the client for the protection of his interests”.

In the present case, there is failure on the part of the appellant to discharge his duties towards his client. This failure, however, is not deliberate. It is on account of heavy pressure of work coupled with lack of diligence on the part of his staff as well as on the part of his client in not sending a responsible person with papers to the office of the Government pleader. However, while the appellant cannot be held responsible for his client’s failure to attend the office, the appellant cannot shift the blame entirely on his staff. As the head of the office it was his responsibility to make sure that the work is properly attended to and the staff performs its functions properly and diligently. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been held guilty of negligence. However, in the absence of any moral turpitude or delinquency on his part, we cannot sustain the finding of the Bar council of India that his conduct in the facts and circumstances of this case amounts to professional misconduct. In fact the various mitigating circumstances have been noted by the Bar council of India itself.

The negligence on the part of the appellant in these circumstances cannot be construed as professional misconduct.

The appeals are, therefore, allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs

One party cannot withdraw consent for divorce: HC

By Law India and Rajesh Vakharia in Fight Against Misuse Of 498a Law (Files) · Edit Doc

The Bombay High Court has held that “before the decree (of divorce by mutual consent) is passed, one party cannot be allowed to unilaterally withdraw the consent if the other party has already acted upon the consent terms either wholly or in part to his or her detriment.”

A Division Bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Mridula Bhatkar observed that the court can allow one of the litigating spouses to backtrack from the agreements made for a divorce by mutual consent only if there is a reason good enough for it and the rights of the other party are not prejudiced.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a Pune-based couple that had been separated since 2006. They were married in August 1993 and have two children. Initially, the petition for divorce was filed by the wife on the grounds of cruelty. There were other complaints filed by her under Section 498-A (harassment) of the IPC.
On October 6, 2008, however, the husband and wife agreed for a divorce by mutual consent and the wife withdrew the criminal complaints lodged against the husband. She also relinquished her right for alimony and agreed to transfer the property in her name to that of her husband. While the custody of both the children was given to her she had agreed to let him have access to them on weekends and during school vacations.


However, at a later stage the husband refused to seek a divorce by mutual consent contending that the consent terms were not irrevocable. He said his wife had faulted on granting him access to their children. However, the wife informed the court that he failed to meet the children as he was facing criminal charges in some other case and was in jail on the day he was supposed to meet them. On March 31, 2009, the family court in Pune granted the couple a divorce by mutual consent.

One party cannot withdraw consent for divorce: HC

By Law India and Rajesh Vakharia in Fight Against Misuse Of 498a Law (Files) · Edit Doc

The Bombay High Court has held that “before the decree (of divorce by mutual consent) is passed, one party cannot be allowed to unilaterally withdraw the consent if the other party has already acted upon the consent terms either wholly or in part to his or her detriment.”

A Division Bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Mridula Bhatkar observed that the court can allow one of the litigating spouses to backtrack from the agreements made for a divorce by mutual consent only if there is a reason good enough for it and the rights of the other party are not prejudiced.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a Pune-based couple that had been separated since 2006. They were married in August 1993 and have two children. Initially, the petition for divorce was filed by the wife on the grounds of cruelty. There were other complaints filed by her under Section 498-A (harassment) of the IPC.
On October 6, 2008, however, the husband and wife agreed for a divorce by mutual consent and the wife withdrew the criminal complaints lodged against the husband. She also relinquished her right for alimony and agreed to transfer the property in her name to that of her husband. While the custody of both the children was given to her she had agreed to let him have access to them on weekends and during school vacations.


However, at a later stage the husband refused to seek a divorce by mutual consent contending that the consent terms were not irrevocable. He said his wife had faulted on granting him access to their children. However, the wife informed the court that he failed to meet the children as he was facing criminal charges in some other case and was in jail on the day he was supposed to meet them. On March 31, 2009, the family court in Pune granted the couple a divorce by mutual consent.

SMS Evidence in Court

By Law India in Fight Against Misuse Of 498a Law (Files) · Edit Doc

Find steps to be followed for admission of SMS:

1. Take a back up of sms on your PC/ Laptop.

2. Take a print of screen shot of that SMS and Write a data CD having that SMS in original format and in word format (with duly pasted screen shot).

3. Submit an application u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence act clearly specifying the content and highlight the Major content of that SMS and impact of that SMS on your case.

 4.Also submit an affidavit with entire transcript of that SMS in favor of application u/s 65 B along with sealed envelope containing the CD as mentioned in point no.2.

 5. If court asks about the original document you can produce the chip / memory stick. If questioned by the opposition's lawyer or judge state that why this original chip was not produced earlier and is to be produced in other cases (if any) filed by your wife/ inlaws.

 NOTE: do not use this sms at initial stage in excitement...use it at the appropriate time so that you find chance to get some different statements denying content of SMS from your opposition which could lead to perjury.

Stridhan Recovery / 406 Related Citations - Part III

By Law India and Sanjay Verma in Fight Against Misuse Of 498a Law (Files) · Edit Doc

51.Bachan Singh Versus Harpreet Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : P.K.Jain
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Alternate remedy
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1996
Citation(s) : 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 806, III(1996) CCR 338
Complaint for offences u/s 406, 498-A IPC filed against husband and relatives – Magistrate issued summons order – Petition u/s 482 of Code for quashing complaint on plea of vagueness of allegations in complaint – Held – Direction to petitioner to approach Magistrate for seeking relief – High Court should be reluctant to invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code as more efficacious alternate remedy is available to petitioners before Magistrate – Petition dismissed.

52.Bhupinder Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR, Ingredient of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) Crimes 84, 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 225
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – FIR lodged - Peition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR – Proceedings u/s Sec.12 Hindu Marriage Act – Cruelty allegedly caused at Yamunanagar – Territorial jurisdiction – Police officers at Lalru having no jurisdiction to investigate the case – Dowry articles entrusted to the main petitioner (husband) under doubt – Held – Impugned FIR quashable – Criminal breach of trust not established.

53.Balbir Singh Versus Harpreet Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.B.Garg
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Documentary evidence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 26
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint institute by respondent for offence u/s 405, 406 498-A and quashing of order passed by CJM – Held – The mere fact that the CJM did not send the complainant to the police for inquiry though it was desired by complainant, would not render the impugned order as anticipatory bail was void ab initio inasmuch as the CJM recorded the statement of the complainant and also statement of father of complainant and together with the documentary evidence whatever it was he pass the impugned order – Allegation against member of families were vague so complaint against them quashed – Complaint against petitioner no 2 to 6 is hereby quashed – Petition partly allowed.

54.Ashok Kumar Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compounding of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991 JCC 406, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 541 (HC)
Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint by wife against husband – Mutual divorce on intervention of relations – Parties agreed for dropping of criminal proceedings – Complainant having settled in life after remarriage and does not desire to proceed further with the complaint in terms of compromise – Held – Proceedings quashed in the interest of justice.

55.Abdul Salam Versus A.C.J.M
Hon’ble Justice(s) : O.P.Jain
Allahabad High Court
Subject(s) : Simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : 1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 730, II(1995) CCR 545
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filing Civil suit to get dowry articles – Complainant u/s 406 IPC filed in between – Whether civil and criminal proceedings can go simultaneous? [Yes] – Criminal complaint u/s 406 IPC not barred for reason of civil suit on same matter.

56. Beant Kaur Versus Mukand Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : K.K.Srivastava
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Breach of terms of mutual divorce
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420 Year(s) : 1998
Citation(s) : 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 306
Offence under – Sec. 13B of Hindu Marriage Act – Parties got divorce by mutual consent – Husband agreed that he would pay Rs. 2.60 lacs to the wife but paid only Rs. 1.50 lacs – Breach of trust and cheating – Held – Prima facie case u/s 406 / 420 IPC made out.

57.Beena Alexander Kurian Versus Alexander Kurian
Hon’ble Justice(s) : K.G.Balakrishnan
Kerala High Court
Subject(s) : Dishonest misappropriation, Limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(3) Crimes 15, 1990 CRI. L. J. 2641
Offence under – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Acquittal as Trial Court found prosecution as afterthought – Appeal against acquittal – Wife deserted husband’’s house, staying with parents and made demand for return of Istridhan – Civil suit by wife for recovery of Istridhan followed by criminal complaint – Complainant failed to prove dishonest misappropriation of Istridhan by the accused-husband – Also, complaint was barred by time – Held – Finding of Trial Court neither perverse nor unreasonable – Acquittal legally sustainable – Appeal dismissed.

58.Balram Singh Versus Sukhwant Kaur and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992 CRI. L. J. 792, 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 404
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Offence u/s 406 IPC – Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Held – Breach of trust is a continuing offence – Thus, fresh cause of action accrues till accused return of the property of his wife.

59.Baldev Singh Versus Nasir Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.L.Singhal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Exclusion of period for computing limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 265
Petitioner field complaint u/s 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Petitioner presented application before the Magistrate praying that accused be charge u/s 406 of IPC and Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Magistrate after recording pre-charge evidence, discharged accused persons – Revision against the order of Magistrate – Held – Magistrate was quite justified in returning a verdict of not guilty so far as the accused are concerned – If wife institute any suit for the recovery of article of dowry or the value thereof in the civil Court, period spent by her in these proceedings in this Court, in the Court of Magistrate shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation – Revision dismissed.

60.Brij Lal Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Sarojnei Saksena
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 319
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Refusal of oath – Territorial jurisdiction – Petition to quash proceedings – Matrimonial home of bride at Hansi, and parental home at Ambala – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Entrusted at Ambala, and taken to Hansi – Dowry articles to be returned at Ambala only – Bride given constant beatings at Hansi – Came back to Ambala – Tried to reconcile, but not called back by her in-laws – FIR u/s 498-A and 406 lodged – Ambala Court has jurisdiction in this regard, as the repercussions of mental and physical torture made at Hansi still persisting at Ambala – Petitioners contending that the bride did not complain of cruelty in her letter – Not held to be a ground to quash the proceedings – Question of fact of authorship of the letters to be decided by Trial Court.

61.Ashutosh Chowdhury and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.K.Bhattacharjee
Calcutta High Court
Subject(s) : Limitation, Applicability of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. for offence u/s 498-A / 406
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : IV(1995) CCR 132
Offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC are not continuing offences – Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. is applicable for offence u/s 498-A IPC and thus barred by limitation.

62.Balram Singh Versus Suwkhant Kaur and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Continuing offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 404
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Offence u/s 406 IPC – Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Held – Breach of trust is a continuing offence – Thus, fresh cause of action accrues till accused return of the property of his wife.

63.Balwinder Kumar Sharma Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1994
Citation(s) : 1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 483, II(1994) CCR 848 (SC)
Petitioner filed petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered at Sonepat for offence u/s 498-A / 406 IPC – Held – Police at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to investigate this matter as allegation of cruelty are made with respect to the period when she stayed in her in-laws house which admittedly was at Faridabad – FIR against all petitioner for offence u/s 498-A quashed – It shall be open for complainant to seek remedies for prosecution of the petitioners u/s 498-A in the proper forum.

64.Baljit Singh and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of FIR, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(1) RCR (Criminal) 39
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR for offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Complainant (wife) of appellant entered into compromise – Held – Complainant agreed to withdraw the case against appellant after both the parties settle there dispute – This Court allowed the parties to settle there claims and this Court allowed petition for quashing FIR – Petition allowed.

65.Basant Kaur and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(2) C.C.Cases 62 (HC), 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 204
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for seeking quashment of FIR registered against them for offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC and Sec. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act as also entire investigation as well as report u/s 173 of the Code – Entrustment of articles to parents and relation of husband – Property were required to be return in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court – Under territorial jurisdiction of the Court complainant was residing with her parents – Held – Court at Jind had jurisdiction to try the offence – Petition dismissed.

66.Ashwani Kumar and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Arun B.Saharya
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Failure to prove cruelty in matrimonial proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992 CRI. L. J. 446, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 674, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 73 (HC), 1991 JCC 174
Offences under – FIR – Quashment sought u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Averments in FIR prima faciely prove that husband and in-laws of complainant wife subjected her to “cruelty” – Failure on part of wife to prove allegations of cruelty in matrimonial proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband, as she remained ex parte, whether would disprove allegations in FIR? [No] – Held – Case not fit to quash FIR and proceedings thereupon – Petition dismissed.

67.Avtar Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.K.Jain
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 157, II(1993) CCR 1346
Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Territorial jurisdiction -Matrimonial house of wife at Panipat where she was given beatings – She was brought to Ludhiana where dowry was demanded from her parents – Wife filed complaint for offence u/s 498-A IPC at Ludhiana – Whether Ludhiana Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance? [Yes] – Held – Incident of subjecting wife to beatings at Panipat and subsequently bringing her to Ludhiana for dowry demand form same part of transaction – However, complaint u/s 406 IPC liable to be quashed as there was no specific allegation of entrustment of particular articles to any particular accused – General and vague allegations in FIR not sufficient to sustain charge u/s 406 IPC.


68.Balbir Singh and others Versus Sudesh and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.G.Nandi
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compounding of offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 34 Year(s) : 2000
Citation(s) : 2000(2) JCC 329
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing of FIR for the offences u/s 406, 498-A, 34 IPC initiated by respondent no. 1 / Complainant – Affidavits filed by petitioner no. 1 and testified to the effect that one daughter has been born and it is settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 that custody of the said daughter will remain with the complainant and deponent does not claim the custody of the child – It is further testified that although the dowry article have been returned to the complainant and as such there is no controversy between the deponent and respondent no. 1 / complainant – Held – In view of the affidavit filed by petitioners and respondent no. 1 / complainant and the decree of divorce u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 1 and settlement of all dispute, as testified by them as pointed out above, FIR for the offence u/s 406 / 498-A, 34 IPC initiated by respondent no 1 against the petitioners need to be quashed – Petition allowed.

69.Balwinder Kumar Versus Kashama Devi
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Pritpal Singh
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Vague allegations
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1987
Citation(s) : 1987 C.C.Cases 554 (HC)
Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint – Offence u/s 406 / 34 IPC – Allegation against petitioner that he misappropriate dowry articles given by parents of girl – Prosecution failed to produce any evidence which made petitioner liable for offence – No specific mention of dowry article given at the time of marriage – Held – Fit case for quashing complaint – Petition allowed.

• Stridhan is classified into 2 types:

1. Gifts received from parents and in -laws out of love and affection.
2. All other gifts from strangers(Here husband has power to use this stridhan equally). On her death it passes to her heirs

1.Harmeet Singh Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 494, 506 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(1) C.C.Cases 229 (HC)
Misappropriation of Istridhan / cruelty / bigamy – FIR under – Quashing of, on plea that offence u/s 494 IPC being not made out from any evidence and allegations on other counts are without any basis – Territorial jurisdiction of the Court – Held – U/s 181(4) Cr.P.C., Court of place where marriage was solemnized can entertain complaint and adjudicate on the matter – Trial Court to decide as to whether allegations made in complaint are baseless or not – High Court not to usurp the jurisdiction of Trial Court in quashing proceedings – Petition dismissed.

2.Gurmukh Singh and others Versus Davinder Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Readiness to return dowry articles – Inference
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 213
Criminal breach or trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint under – Accused ready to return whatever dowry articles were given to him – It implies that accused received dowry articles – Correctness of the allegation as to how much dowry was given is a matter of evidence required to be examined by the Court below – Held – Proceedings not liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

3.Gurdip Singh Versus Daljit Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) C.C.Cases 290 (HC)
Dowry case – Complaint against husband and his parents – Summoning order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of summoning order – Preliminary evidence of complaint and witnesses before issuing summoning order to husband and his parents recorded – Held – No ground to quash summoning order – Petition dismissed.

4.Gurmej Kaur Versus Balbir Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : Harbans Singh Rai
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of summoning order, Omission in complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1988
Citation(s) : 1988 C.C.Cases 579 (HC)
Criminal breach of trust – Petitioner sought quashing of summoning order issued against him on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent wife – Complaint not mentioning whether the dowry articles were specifically entrusted to petitioner – Held – It could not be proved that petitioner was present at time of giving dowry and performance of marriage – Proceedings be quashed – Petition allowed.

5.Giani Harjit Singh Versus Paramjit Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : N.K.Kapoor
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband, Stay of criminal proceedings, Power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1995
Citation(s) : III(1995) CCR 546, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 580
Dowry articles – Misappropriation of – Wife filed complaint – Husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband’’s brother and his wife implicated – Summon order – Validity of – Husband filed petition u/s 13 Hindu Marriage Act which was pending in Civil Court – Complaint by wife challenged as counter-blast to divorce petition – All accused had joint residence & mess – Complaint had specific allegations as to which articles were entrusted to each accused – Various articles of dowry were entrusted to each of them as per list attached with complaint – Held – Case u/s 406 IPC prima facie made out – No illegality in issuing summoning order – Entrustment of Istridhan and other articles to accused, not subject matter of adjudication before Civil Court – No ground to stay or quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C does not have jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of allegations – Petition dismissed.

6.Harpal Singh Versus Mukhtiar Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Nullity of marriage, Complaint by father of wife – Maintainability, Bar on power of Court to take cognizance of matrimonial offence
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 420, 506 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 188
Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint – Husband pleaded nullity of his marriage on ground of earlier marriage of his wife and said previous husband was still alive, and therefore question of Istridhan cannot arise – Held – Plea cannot be accepted if necessary ingredients for the offence u/s 406 IPC are fulfilled – Further held that u/s 198 Cr.P.C., it is not always required that aggrieved spouse should file complaint and complaint filed by the father of bride is maintainable – Sec. 198 Cr.P.C. put a bar on power of Court to take cognizance of matrimonial offences which figure in Chapter XX of IPC, unless aggrieved spouse files complaint for the same.
7.Harminder Singh and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of FIR, Entrustment, Arrangement in divorce proceedings – Inference
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 120-B Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : I(1992) CCR 878
FIR for offences under – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the same – Divorce petition pending, during which, parties reached to an arrangement, in pursuance to which, dowry articles were entrusted to one ”X” – No mention in complaint as to whom dowry articles were returned after divorce petition was dismissed – Held – In absence of allegation that ”X” entrusted dowry articles to husband, no charge of criminal breach of trust can be levelled against husband – Proceedings quashed, except for charge u/s 498-A IPC.


8.Bhagwan Singh and others Versus State and others
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Acts of cruelty, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 64
Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint against husband, and his relatives – Complaint alleging specific allegations of entrustment – Prima facie case u/s 406 established – Accused contending that they lived separately – Held – Trial Court to go into the truth of allegations made in the complaint – Bride alleging that the act of extreme cruelty made her to think of suicide – Cruelty established.



9.Binoy Kumar Mukherjee and others Versus State and others
Patna High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 307, 323, 386, 406 Year(s) : 2000
Citation(s) : 2000(1) Crimes 477
Cruelty – Attempt to murder – Criminal breach of trust – Voluntary hurt – Extortion – Petition for quashing proceedings – Husband/petitioner filing a divorce suit – Wife filing criminal case – Prior to this, petitioner was sending Rs. 1, 000/-p.m., and had increased it to Rs. 1, 800/-p.m.for son’’s maintenance and education – Apart from this, wife also received Rs. 3 lakhs in compromise in the Matrimonial Court – Held – FIR not mentioning strong enough charges to make a prima facie case – If proceedings continue, it shall amount to the abuse of process of Court – Petition allowed.

10.Gurdev Singh Versus Nachhattar Kaur @ Mandip Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Customary gifts at the time of marriage, Quashing of complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(3) Crimes 179, 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 328
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Parents of bride gave customary gifts to the in-laws of bride at the time of marriage – No question of entrustment of any article given to the accused at the time of marriage within the said provision of IPC – Whether the criminal breach of trust arise? [No] – Held – No offence u/s 406 IPC made out – Complaint quashed.

11.Harjinder Kaur Versus Nachhattar Singh and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.S.Nehra
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Omission in complaint, Ingredient of offence, Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 405, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 692
Sec. 4, 6 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife made complaint that accused did not return back her dowry articles even when she demanded for the same – However, dishonest misappropriation of said dowry articles by the accused was not alleged in complaint – Held – No offence u/s 405 PC made out – Requisite ingredient for offence u/s 405 IPC is dishonest intention – Misappropriation simplicitor is not sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 405 IPC – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

12.Gurdeep Singh and others Versus Ginni
Hon’ble Justice(s) : J.S.Sekhon
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Compounding of non compoundable offence, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 349, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 186 (Supp.)
Offence complained of being non-compoundable in nature – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and proceedings against him u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as matter stands compromised between parties – Held – Proceedings initiated against the accused would not achieve desired result as complainant could not support allegations contained therein, in view of compromise settled between them – In these circumstances pendency and investigation of the case would amount to a futile exercise and unnecessary harassment to the accused – FIR and proceedings against the accused quashed.

13.Himmat Ram and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise, Quashing of proceedings
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 482, 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) C.C.Cases 265 (HC), 1992 JCC 59
Inherent power – Exercise of, on account of mutual compromise – Both parties have settled their all disputes – Dissolution of marriage by divorce by mutual consent under HMA and the wife had been paid Rs. 45,000/- as lump sum and nothing else remains – Held – Proceedings u/s 498-A & 406 IPC pending against petitioner stands quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.


14.Gurbax Singh and others Versus State and others
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Non return of dowry articles to parents of deceased bride, Civil dispute, Quashing of complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 338, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 455 (Supp.)
Return of dowry articles – Girl alleged to have been poisoned to death by in-laws – Criminal case against in-laws for breach of trust for non return of dowry articles to the parents of girl – Whether maintainable? [No] – Held – It is for the Civil Court to decide as to who were the legal heirs of deceased to inherit her property – Criminal proceedings set aside.

15.Gurmukh and others Versus Bhupinder Kaur
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 323, 363, 406, 420, 506, 498-A Year(s) : 1991
Citation(s) : 1991(3) Crimes 380
Complaint – Summoning order – Petition by accused praying for quashing of complaint and consequent proceedings – Complaint contained no specific allegations of entrustment of dowry articles to any petitioners, other than main petitioner (husband) – Due to strained relations, complainant tried to drag close relatives of her husband – Held – Complaint and summoning order liable to be quashed.

16.Harpal Singh Versus Gurnam Singh
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Sudhalkar
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Dowry demand after marriage, Delay in filing complaint
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 405 Year(s) : 1997
Citation(s) : 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 534
Wife made demand of dowry articles, which was not met – Demand was made after 19 years of marriage – Complaint – Magistrate issued summoning order against accused – Plea taken by accused that it is unbelievable that articles must be lying with accused for 19 years – Accused seeking quashing of proceedings on account of delay – Held – Contention rejected – There can not be a general principle as to after how much time the complaint can not lie and delay in every case is to be looked from fact of each case – Petition dismissed.

17.Hira Lal and others Versus State
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Complaint against relatives of husband, Denial by wife to take her Istridhan
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 85
Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filed complaint – Husband and all his relatives implicated in complaint – Held – Only husband is liable for rendering account to wife with respect to the dowry articles – Accused-husband would not be absolved of giving articles to his wife, on her demand, solely on ground that at one point of time, wife did not agree to take her Istridhan articles back – Proceedings qua relatives of husband, set aside.
18.Gyanchand and others Versus Thawardas
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.S.Ratnaparkhi
Bombay High Court
Subject(s) : Criminal breach of trust by daughter-in-law, Absolute ownership of ornaments
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1990
Citation(s) : 1990(1) Crimes 153
Offence under – Complaint against daughter-in-law and her brother and father regarding criminal breach of trust – Process issued by the Trial Court against accused – Allegations against the daughter-in-law that she left the matrimonial house along with ornaments the part of which was given to them by their father-in-law at the time of marriage and a part thereafter – Held – Accused persons could not be treated as trustees as they would be absolute owners as per law – Process issued against the accused quashed.

19.Gurmeet Singh and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of complaint, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1993
Citation(s) : 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 354 , 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 89
Criminal complaint by wife alleging misappropriation of dowry articles – Specific allegations in complainant regarding entrustment of different dowry articles to close relatives of husband – Complaint also included allegations that some dowry articles were entrusted to wife of husband’’s brother who were living separately – Allegations on face of it seems to be false – Held – Complaint against the petitioners quashed.

20.Hukami Devi and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.S.Rathor
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Delay in FIR, Limitation, Taking ornaments of bride by deception – Not cruelty, Quashing of FIR
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 498-A, 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 357 , 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 357
Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – FIR – List of dowry articles which were alleged to be misappropriated given with FIR – No specific allegation as to which of the accused was entrusted with what articles – Not mentioned in FIR as to what harm was caused to bride when chillies were allegedly put in her eyes and who commited such act – Also, no mention of time, date of torturous action made in complaint – Allegations were found vague to make out an offence either u/s 498-A IPC or u/s 406 IPC – Also, FIR for offence u/s 498-A IPC filed after 3 years of illegal demand of property from bride, is barred u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. – Held – Allegation that accused persons used deception to take away ornaments from complainant-bride would not amount to cruelty within ambit of Sec. 498-A IPC – FIR quashed – Petition allowed.

21.Dwarka Nath Kundra and others Versus Moti Lal Bhatia and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : V.B.Bansal
Delhi High Court
Subject(s) : Quashing of proceedings, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 34 Year(s) : 1988
Citation(s) : 1988-91 C.C.Cases 25 (Supp.), 1991 JCC 445
Criminal proceedings by wife against husband – Sec.482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of proceedings – Marriage between the parties dissolved by a divorce decree under Hindu Marriage Act – Custody of minor child allowed with the mother – Respondents unwilling to carry on with the complaint – Dispute already settled between parties – No need of proceedings to continue – Would be an abuse of the process of the Court – Held – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

22.Dr. Yog Dhayan Banga and others Versus State and others
Hon’ble Justice(s) : S.D.Bajaj
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Compromise in divorce petition, Compromise
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406, 498-A, 506 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 190
FIR by wife for offences under – Husband and in-laws implicated – Also, wife filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – In proceedings for divorce, compromise between parties – Whether compromise can be a ground to quash criminal proceedings, particularly when nowhere in the compromise it was mentioned that the wife nullified the act of cruelty committed by the accused persons? [No] – Held – Petition dismissed.

23.Diwan Chand and others Versus Raj Rani
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1992
Citation(s) : 1992(1) C.C.Cases 519 (HC)
Misappropriation – Of dowry articles – Complaint made after 8 years of marriage – It is possible that husband has taken charge of such articles – General allegations regarding entrustment made in respect to husband and parents-in-law, and not specific entrustments – Allegations against parents-in-law not proved – Held – Complaint and summons order against the parents-in-law quashed.


24.Hakam Singh and others Versus State and others
P & H High Court
Subject(s) : Dowry and Istridhan – Distinction, Entrustment of dowry articles to minors, Continuing offence, Limitation
Indian Penal Code
Section(s) : 406 Year(s) : 1989
Citation(s) : 1989 C.C.Cases 484 (HC)
Dowry & Istridhan – Distinction – Dowry implies the presents given to bridal couple and others in connection with the marriage whereas Istridhan is only confined to property given to or meant for the bride – Normally the elder people of the family and not the minors or persons who do not have any connection with the family, are entrusted with the items of dowry and istridhan – Held – Thus, as the complaint in case in hand does not particularly specify entrustment of dowry articles to the petitioners, complaint and consequent proceedings against the minors quashed – Whether offence u/s 406 IPC is continuing one? – Application of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. to said offence – Discussed – Continuing offence – What? – Explained.
Hon’ble Justice(s) : A.P.Chowdhri
Hon’ble Justice(s) : G.S.Chahal
Hon’ble Justice(s) : M.Y.Eqbal
Hon’ble Justice(s) : H.K.Sandhu