Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977
After referring to
various judicial authorities including the judgments in R.P.Kapur v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Karnataka v.
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 9
L.Muniswamy and Others ((1977) 2 SCC 699), Madhu Limaye v.
The State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindla and Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
and Others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp.
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
After referring to
various judicial authorities including the judgments in R.P.Kapur v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Karnataka v.
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 9
L.Muniswamy and Others ((1977) 2 SCC 699), Madhu Limaye v.
The State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindla and Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
and Others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp.
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Etc vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. ... on 9 February, 1988
After referring to
various judicial authorities including the judgments in R.P.Kapur v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Karnataka v.
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 9
L.Muniswamy and Others ((1977) 2 SCC 699), Madhu Limaye v.
The State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindla and Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
and Others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
After referring to
various judicial authorities including the judgments in R.P.Kapur v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Karnataka v.
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 9
L.Muniswamy and Others ((1977) 2 SCC 699), Madhu Limaye v.
The State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindla and Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
and Others ((1988) 1 SCC 692), State of Haryana and Others v.
Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp.
G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of Up. And Ors on 28 January, 2000
(1) SCC 335) and G.Sagar Suri
and Another v. State of UP and Others ((2000) 2 SCC 636) the
Hon'ble Apex Court restated the consistent and constant view in regard
to the subject of exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
Apex Court further opined that it is common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation has been rapidly increasing in our
country and it is a matter of common experience that most of the
complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues without proper deliberations. It is also observed that
at the time of filing of most of the complaints the implications and
consequences are not properly visualized by the complainants and
therefore, such complaints could lead to insurmountable harassment,
agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. It
was further held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
herculean task in majority of the complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 10
living in different cities and had never visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion, it is
observed. After making detailed consideration of such aspects and the
relevant authorities, in the light of the facts obtained in that case, the
Hon'ble Apex court held that it would unfair to compel the appellants to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial and thought it fit to quash the
complaint against the appellants. Consequently, the order of the trial
court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The learned counsel for
the appellants contended that the facts obtained in that case is more or
less the same as obtained in this case. It is contended by the learned
counsel that even going by the contention of the first respondent the
marriage between herself and the first accused was solemnised on
9.9.2010 and on 27.9.2010 itself she left for Gulf Countries along with
her husband. Thus, it is evident that immediately after the marriage she
lived in the matrimonial home hardly for a very few days and thereafter,
left for Gulf Countries along with her husband. According to the
statement recorded from her on 5.11.2012 she came back to India and
to the native place thereafter, for the purpose of performing a ritualistic
function of her son in 2011. The only allegation which she raised against
the mother-in-law, the 2nd petitioner is that on 15.11.2011 while the
child was being fed with milk she pulled her hands. The allegation
against the brother-in-law, the 4th petitioner is that while she was living
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 11
along with her husband in the Gulf Countries on 16.1.2012 he came to
the flat and quarrelled with her for not changing the documents of a car
registered in her name in favour of her husband. The said allegations in
Annexure-II have been extracted earlier. A scanning of the said
averments would undoubtedly reveal that they cannot be treated as
incidents of cruelty so as to form basis for accusation of offence under
Section 498-A IPC against the 2nd and 4th petitioners and consequently,
the basis of prosecution against them. A perusal of the said statement
dated 5.11.2012 would reveal that no specific allegations were made
against the 1st and 3rd petitioners who are none other than father-in-law
and sister-in-law of the first respondent. In fact, there is absolute
absence of any allegation against the sister-in-law. The learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the father-in-law of the first
respondent is presently aged 72 and he is afflicted with renal cancer.
Evidently, the 3rd petitioner is residing with her husband and there is
absolute absence of any specific allegation against her in Annexure-II.
Despite such facts evidently, they were dragged into those proceedings
and they were made to face a criminal prosecution. As regards the 2nd
and 4th petitioners, who are respectively the mother-in-law and the
brother-in-law of the first respondent, I have already adverted to the
allegations made by the first respondent in the statement given by her.
True that some vague allegations have been raised by her that
Crl.M.C.1871/2013 12
immediately after the marriage viz., on the 3rd day itself the parents of
the first accused and her husband himself asked her to place all the gold
ornaments in the locker of a bank. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs
allegedly sent by the first respondent herself available in page Nos.35 to
51 of the memorandum of criminal miscellaneous case I do not think it
necessary to look into and make comments on them.
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
In such circumstances, in view of the legal principles set
out in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preethi Gupta's case
(supra) I am of the view that it would be absolutely unfair to compel the
petitioners to face the trial. In the interest of justice termination of the
criminal prosecution against them by invoking the inherent jurisdiction is
called for.