Tuesday, July 31, 2012

One party cannot withdraw consent for divorce: HC

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

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

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

Sunday, March 18, 2012

A Soft Nature Of A Person Doesn't Mean Weakness...
Remember.... Nothing Is Softer Than Water...
But Its Force Can Break The Strongest Of Rock..!!

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Filing quash petition for 498A is having both advantages and disadvantages
Disadvantages:
1. The quash percentage is very low (hardly 2 %) ,so there is no gurantee that your petition will get through.
2. It will take considerable amount of time (atleast 2-3 years time), If quash petition fails then again every thing will start at lower court , it again takes another 2-3 years time
3. Money wastage

Advantages:
1. If the accused people are mentally not strong enough then getting stay order from HC and running the case at HC without their presence for 2-3 years of time, will give some sort of mental relief and it also it gives considerable amount of time for accuses to fight the case
2. If atleast one or two accuses names gets quash then they can file the defamation case against 498A gang.
3. If the 498A bitch ( I am sorry to use this word,  I know the word bitch doesnt match for 498A girl, but I didnt find any worser word in the dictionary) doesnt have patience, then she may come for compromise and the accuses people can negotiate the SETTLEMENT amount as they have stay order.
Finally, what I want to say is , if you have time in our hand (like having 498A on your hand wont bother you much)  or if you or your family members are mentally not strong enough then i suggest you to go HC and file quash petition.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Faith is important.
No matter how you pray, meditate, relax.
Have faith that it will work
and
it really will .