|
| |
Against Harassment in the name of Dowry U/s.498(A)
- Allegations Against
Sister-In-Laws: Insulting and making derogatory remarks does not fall
U/s.498(A) IPC - RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (3/3/2005) -Supreme Court of
India
Certain acts of taunting and
ill-treatment of informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but
they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of
property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the F. I.
R. is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W. C. and
she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as "even if you have got
much jewellery, you are our slave. " It is further stated in the report that
Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her
that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if
true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or
her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law gowri
was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely
against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for
property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made
against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to
rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible. Neither the F.I.R.
nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy.
The High court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial.
Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri ramaswamy are
hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed.
- Rope in Relatives in Dowry
Harassment Cases and Dowry Death Cases - KANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB
(26/4/2000) - Supreme Court of India:
For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in
all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where
such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than
husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere
conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the
offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters
of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of
the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and
anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased
have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which
ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused
as appears to have happened in the instant case.(para 5)
- Compoundable if compramise -
THATHAPADI VENKATALAKSHMI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (27/7/1990) - High
Court of A.P.:
Though in the instant
case, the wife made a report to the police regarding the cruelty meted out
to her at the hands of her husband, the parties had some reconciliation,
there were talks for settlement, and there was agreement between the spouses
to lead a harmonious matrimonial life. Since the basic object of any
matrimonial law is to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life
between the spouses though under different circumstances they approached the
Court the permission sought for to compound the offence u/s. 498- A IPC
pursuant upon the settlement and understanding between the spouses to
amicably live together with harmony can be accorded by this Court u/s. 482
Cr. P. C Keeping, therefore, in view the larger interests of the parties and
to secure the ends of justice the Court below is directed by exercising
powers u/ S. 482 Cr. P. C. to accord permission to compound the offence
after examining the parties in Court and after satisfying about the
voluntary nature of the settlement and the consequent filing of the petition
in question for purposes of compounding the offence. Para.5.
- Compoundable if compromise
either for divorce or for re-union - DAGGUPATI JAYALAKSHMI VS. STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH (23/6/1993) - High Court of A.P.:
We are of the firm view that in matrimonial cases, that too, in exceptional
circumstances where the disputes arose between the wife and husband
resulting in filing a complaint and a petition for divorce which ultimately
resulted in the form of compromise either for divorce or for re-union, and
where some of the sections complained of are Compoundable and some
non-compoundable, the High Court alone is competent, exercising the inherent
power vested in it under section 482 Cr. P. C. to permit the parties to
compound a non-compoundable offence along with other compoundable offences,
after being satisfied with the compromise entered into between the parties.
The Magistrate or the Sessions Judge, who are not having inherent powers,
have no power to accord permission to compound a noncompoundable offence.
The application for compounding a non-compoundable offence can be filed by
either of the parties to the compromise before the High Court.
- Compoundable if both parties
agree to live separate by taking divorce - T. CHANDA PAPA RAO VS. STATE
(4/1/2002) - High Court of A.P.:
TO
give one more example, the dispute is settled between the parties and both
the parties are satisfied that they cannot live as wife and husband any more
and both of them take wise decision to separate from each other, the proper
provision is made by the husband for the maintenance of the wife, the
matrimonial relations between the parties are put to an end by the competent
Court of Civil jurisdiction. In that event also the husband cannot be made
to face a drama of facing trial under Section 498-A IPC. Whatever the
examples given by us, they are not exhaustive but they are only
illustrative. Therefore, we are of the considered view that depending upon
the facts of each case, the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr. PC to meet the ends of justice and to stop the abuse of
process of law. Reference made by the learned single Judge is answered
accordingly. Para 16.
- Where Couple cannot live
together and come to conclusion - MANDA VIKRAM DEV VS. M. SUPRIYA
(23/1/2006) - High Court of A.P.:
IN
the instant case also both the spouses are young and highly qualified. If
they have to fight like cocks in a Court of law for years together they
would certainly lose their valuable years of life particularly youth-hood.
They have reached a stage where they cannot live together. Allegations and
counter allegations are being made. They decided to take divorce. If more
valuable part of life is lost it is difficult for them to get remarried.
Denying to quash the proceedings would not serve any purpose when the
criminal proceedings launched against the husband are going to end in
acquittal in view of the compromise. To allow the police to file
charge-sheet in crime No. 224 of 2005 and to allow the proceedings in the
above said crimes to go on, would ultimately result in futile exercise,
wasting the valuable time of the police, the Court and the parties as well.
Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, i feel it is expedient in the
interest of justice to quash the proceeding in all the three cases. Para 27.
- High Court can quash the
petition - B. S. JOSHI VS. STATE OF HARYANA (13/3/2003) - Supreme Court of
India:
( 13 ) THE observations made by this
Court, though in a slightly different context, in G. V. Rao v. L. H. V.
Prasad and Ors. 1 are very apt for determining the approach required to be
kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it was said that there
has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to
settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in
commissions of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arraigned as
accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
"young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
( 14 ) THERE
is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing section
498a in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498a was added with a view
to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against
interests of women and against the object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that nonexercise of inherent power to quash
the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from
settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian penal
Code.
( 15 ) IN view of the above discussion, we hold that the High
Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the
powers under section 482 of the Code.
- Neither Police nor Court can
Impound the Passport - SURESH NANDA VS. C. B. I. (24/1/2008) -Supreme Court
of India
( 15 ) IN our opinion, even
the Court cannot impound a passport. Though, no doubt, section 104, Cr. P.
C. states that the Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or
thing produced before it, in our opinion, this provision will only enable
the Court to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is
because impounding a "passport" is provided for in section 10 (3) of the
Passports Act. The Passports act is a special law while the Cr. P. C. is a
general law. It is well settled that the special law prevails over the
general law vide G. P. Singh's Principles of Statutory interpretation (9th
Edition pg. 133 ). This principle is expressed in the maxim "generalia
specialibus non derogant". Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by
the Court under Section 104, Cr. P. C. though it can impound any other
document or thing.
- Police cannot seize passport
U/s.102 Cr.P.C. arbitrarily : S. SATHYANARAYANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
(24/1/2003) - Karnataka High Court.
IN
this case, the I. O. who conducted raid seized certain properties including
the Passport of the petitioner and his wife which is neither the subject of
theft nor seizure of the Passport has created any suspicion of the
commission of offence. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
forgery and misappropriation of funds. Possessing a Passport is not an
incriminating circumstance at all. This Court has already enlarged the
petitioner on bail and has imposed certain stringent conditions. Therefore,
the seizure of Passport in this case is not legal though the police officer
has power to seize any property subject to the provisions of S. 102, Cr. P.
C. The trial Judge is not right in rejecting the request of the petitioner
for return of Passport. Hence, the order of the trial Magistrate rejecting
the prayer of the petitioner for return of Passport is not sustainable in
law. Para 18.
<< Back >>
|
|
|
|
