Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (3.15 seconds)
Documents citing Vijeta Gajra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 July, 2010

Akhtar Malik & Anr. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 30 May, 2019

17. Though, on behalf of the State, it was contended that the petition be dismissed, on a consideration of the verdicts relied upon on behalf of the petitioners in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr." (supra) and the verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and "State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh" (supra) in relation to the same aspect, it is apparent that the expression 'relative of the husband' under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is a penal provision has to be given a strict interpretation in the absence of any statutory definition of the term 'relative' which thus has to be assigned a meaning as is knowingly understood and is to include a person related by blood, marriage or adoption as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "U. Suvetha Vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr." (supra) and in "Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" (supra) and thus, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is apparent that the two present petitioners namely Akhtar and Hanif arrayed as accused in the FIR No. 461/2013 dated 02.07.2013, PS Govindpuri under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not related to the husband of the complainant nor by the blood, nor by marriage, nor by adoption, in as much as the two petitioners are the maternal uncles of the sister-in-law (Jethani) i.e. the maternal uncles of the sister-in-law i.e. the wife of the elder brother of the husband of the complainant and can thus, not in any manner fall within the meaning of the term 'relative' of the husband of the complainant as being related to him by blood, marriage or adoption.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Smt. Shaik Riayazun Bee vs The State Of A.P. Rep By P.P High Court Of ... on 1 June, 2016

Para8 The expression relative of the husband further came up for consideration in the case of Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi ((2010) 11 SCC 618) and while approving the decision of this Court in U. Suvetha (Supra), it was held that the word relative would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage. It is appropriate to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - U D Rao - Full Document

Miss Mouna K L vs State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2022

(Emphasis supplied) The issue before the Apex Court in U.SUVETHA was whether a relative of a husband of a woman would come within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC or the provisions should be given an extended meaning to include any relative of the husband. The Apex Court has categorically held that penal statutes have to be strictly construed and no where a paramour/girl friend/concubine would come within the meaning of 'relative' under Section 498A of the IPC. This is again followed in reiteration by the Apex Court in the case of VIJETA GAJRA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Akansha Kamdar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court vide judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case U. Suvetha Vs. State By Insp of police, reported in 2009 Vol 6 SCC 757 and in the case of Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2010 Vol 11 SCC 618 to substantiate the arguments that against the distinct relative, no offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could be made out.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Manendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2023

7. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants that appellant No.2 is not to be covered under Section 498-A of IPC because he is not relative of the appellant No.1 by blood, marriage or adoption. As referred to in Section 498-A of IPC in this regard, reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of U. Suvetha vs. State By Inspector of Police and another; (2009) 6 SCC 757 and Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi; (2010) 11 SCC 618. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that a demand of dowry was made in the shape of cash as well gold ornaments is concerned it has been submitted in detail that the said finding of the learned Trial Court cannot said to be in accordance to the law for the simple reason that learned Trial Court has taken into account only examination in-chief of prosecution witnesses by totally ignoring the contradictions, omissions and improvements that have arrived at in their cross examination. That after going through the each and every prosecution witness has been drawn up wherein contradictions, omissions and improvements are shown. Thus, looking to the contradictions, omissions and improvements came in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is not proved that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with any demand of dowry.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - R K Verma - Full Document

Ajmal Khan S/O Jameel Khan vs I) State Of Maharashtra on 9 June, 2011

Next ruling referred to by learned counsel for the applicants, is Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi :2010 ( 6) JT 498 in respect of accusations u/s 498A IPC. The Apex Court has expressed the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of that case there will be no question of prosecution of petitioner-Vijeta and she shall not be tried for the offence u/s 498A. However, in the concluding paragraph, it appears that the Apex Court while directing that appellant - Vijeta shall not be tried for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC; however, it desisted from quashing the FIR in view of the allegations made uunder sec. 406 IPC as well as the Apex Court expected the trial Court to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:19:51 ::: 8 careful while considering the framing of charge; while directing that appellant shall be granted benefit of bail by the trial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A P Bhangale - Full Document

Bench At Nagpur vs Respondents : 1. State Of Maharashtra ... on 20 July, 2011

Criminal Application No. 39/2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldhana, in which interim maintenance was ordered on 28.08.2008. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, only relatives of husband can be charged under Section 498-A of IPC. He disputed that all the applicants are relatives of Shabana's husband answerable to the charges. He made reference to Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2010) 11 SCC 618 and U. Suvetha Vs. State 2009 AIR SCW 3491.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A P Bhangale - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next