Useful Divorce, Maintenance,498A,406 Citations in brief

1) In Ravinder Haribhau Karamkar V/s Shaila Ravinder Karamkar, 1992, Cr. L.J. 1845 (Bombay) – in this reference case, it was held that during the pendency of a filed regular civil court petition under Section 24 of HMA, wife also simultaneously filed a parallel petition under 125 Cr.P.C. of the Code. It was held that the petitioner wife could not be allowed to ride two different horses at the time (two simultaneous proceedings in two different courts) and could not be permitted to continue the maintenance proceedings under section 125 Cr. P.C. when she has already chosen the alternative remedy by filing first a regular civil court suit for maintenance. It is well established that the judgment of the civil court shall prevail over the judgment of the criminal court. The natural justice demands that parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue in different courts.

(2) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.

(3) In Aleamma Mathew Vs C.M. Mathew, 2004, Case No. 80/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that bare reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. shows that a person who is able to maintain onself is not entitled to maintenance under this provision. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitione no. 1 is employed in the private establishment and is earning about Rs. 9000/- per month. Since petitioner no. 1 is able to maintain herself, she is not entitled to the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.

(4) In Namita Rani Bose V/s Dipak Kumar Bose, 1982 (2) H.L.R. 58 (AII.) – it was observed that the phrase “unable to maintain herself” means unable to earn a livelihood. This obviously means that the earning is such that the wife can maintain herself without depending upon others. But merely because she is earns a paltry sum by engaging herself in some profession, which may not even be sufficient to give one meal a day, it cannot be said that she is unable to maintain herself with the income she earns. The income should be such which is sufficient for an ordinary person to be maintained out of it.

(5) In Zubedai V/s Abdul Khader, 1978 Cr. L. J. 1460 (Bombay) – it states that, Karnataka High Court has taken a contrary view in case of Zubedai holding the petitioner must positively aver in her petition that she is unable to maintain herself in addition to the facts that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and he has neglected to maintain her.

(6) In Kavita Vs. Gurdit Singh,2005, Case No. 76/03,Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioners have to furnish evidence to show that the respondent is actually running several business. Thus the petitioners have not able to prove an essential requirement of the provision.

(7) In Geeta Vs Rakesh, 2005, Case No. 703/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has been unable to show that she is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient cause or that the respondent has refused to maintain her.

(8) In Amita Vs Raj Kumar, 2005, Case No. 151/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for her residing separately with the respondent. The view of the fact that the petitioner has been unable to establish one of the conditions required to be shown by her to be entitled under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the other questions arising in the matter, viz. whether she is able to support herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to support her need not be considered.

(9) In Sudershan Lal V/s Smt. Deepak @ Reema Khurana, 1985 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 52 and Paramjit Kaur V/s Surinder Singh, 1992(2) Criminal Court Judgments 171 (Pb. & Har.)– it was held that the wife can claim only one maintenance. Though there are different forums open to her to claim maintenance, yet there cannot be parallel running of different maintenance orders, for one and the same. Only one of them is enforceable and others remain just decelerate in dormancy or consumed. It is for the wife to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce.

(10) In Neeta Vs Vijay Kumar, 2005, Case No. 259/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that based on submissions of the petitioners the petitioners have failed to prove their averments, having not led any evidence in support of their case.

(11) In Kiran Vs Amar Singh, 2005, Case No. 52/03, Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, Hon’ble M.M., Kakardoma Courts (Delhi) – it states that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to reside with her husband. She has also not been able to assign any cause, much less a sufficient cause for not wanting to stay together at the matrimonial house. The respondent on the other hand, is willing to keep and maintain her. The respondent is, therefore, not guilty of having neglected or refused to keep and maintain the petitioner no. 1. As the petitioner no. 1 left the society of the respondent and refused to join his company, she is not entitled to the relief of maintenance allowance.

S. 24 HMA citations.>>

(1) (Dr. N. G. Dastane Vs. Sucheta Dastane)> (AIR 1975, SC 1574 = 1975 (3) SCR 967 DMC 1981 (1) 293)> > It states as: What standard of proof requires to prove “Cruelty”?> In case of Dastane Vs. Dastane, the Supreme Court held that, the normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities, he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved.> > Section 23 of H.M. Act confers on the court the power to pass a decree if it is “satisfied” on matters mentioned in cls. (a) to (e) of the Section. Considering that proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the work “satisfied” must mean “satisfied on preponderance of probabilities” and not “satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt”. Section 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases.> > “Condonation” means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. To constitute Condonation, there must be two things: Forgiveness and Restoration.> > Sex plays on important role in marital life and cannot be separated from other factors which lead to matrimony a sense of fruition and fulfillment. Where, therefore there is evidence showing that the spouses led a normal sexual life even after a series of acts of cruelty by one spouse then that is clear proof of Condonation of cruelty by the other spouse.> > Further, held that intercourse, of course, is not a necessary ingredient of Condonation because there may be evidence otherwise to show that the offending spouse has been forgiven and has been received back into the position previously occupied in the home. But, intercourse in circumstances as obtain here would raise a strong inference of Condonation with its dual requirement, forgiveness and restoration.> > Held, that where Condonation is not pleaded as a defence by the respondent, it is the duty of the court to find out whether the cruelty was condoned by the petitioner in view of the provisions of Sec. 23 (1) (b) of the H.M. Act, which casts an obligation on the court to consider the question of Condonation, an obligation which has to be discharged even in undefended cases.

(2) (Kamini Gupta vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta) AIR.1985 Del 241 = 1985 C.C.C 165 D M C 1985 (1)P 136> > It states as: Wife making unfounded allegations with an intention to hurt her husband – As to womanizer, drunkard etc., Husband entitled to a decree of divorce on ground of wife’s mental cruelty.> > The parties were married on 6-6-1971. On 19-6-78 they separated and have since then been living apart. There are four daughters of the marriage. They are in the custody of the husband. The husband filed the petition for divorce in June 1979 on the ground of cruelty alleging that at a meeting held on 3-7-78 in the presence of the parties relations when negotiations for the resettlement of the parties were a foot, the wife last her temper and started abusing him and called him a heavy drunkard. She complained in the meeting that the husband has been bringing girls in the matrimonial home. As a result of the imputations and accusations, the talks of reconciliation broke down. Thus, was the husband’s positive case in the petition.> > In her written statement the wife replied that she never falsely accused the character of petitioner’s suggesting there by that the charges leveled against the husband were not false.> > When the case came for trial, the wife in her evidence repeated these charges times out of number. She named three girls namely – Rupa, Mamta and Alka Sayal, with whom the husband had extra-marital relations. About Rupa, the wife said that she was a cabaret. When the parents of husband were away to Simla, one night the husband brought Rupa to the house and started drinking with her. The wife was present. Afterwards, the husband wanted to “indulge in sex” with Rupa. This the wife could not stand. So in utter disgust, she withdrew herself from the room the husband and Rupa were stayed for the whole night, she says.> > About Mamta, the wife said that Mamta ill-reputed girl, worked in the husband’s office in kamlanagar, and she said that she have seen Mamta herself when she came to our house.> > About Alka, the wife narrated that the husband had married and she was pregnant from him.> > The trial judge disbelieved the evidence of wife.> > It is observed that the husband’s father was at the relevant time an Additional District judge in Delhi, just opposite the husband’s father’s flat was the flat of their near relations. In this environment, it seems most unlikely that the husband will bring a cabaret dancer to the flat who will stay through out the night in the house in wife’s presence. The case of husband’s sexual relationship with Mamta and Alka equally remained unproved. There is no cogent evidence on record that the husband was a philanderer or that he was flirting with girls or dangling after women.> > Found that the charges of immorality leveled by the wife are reckless in the extreme and entirely baseless.> > Held, that any man with reasonable self-respect and power of endurance will find difficult to live with a taunting wife when such taunts are in fact insults and indignities Human nature being what it is, a reasonable man’s reaction to the conduct of the offending spouse is the test.> > Held that the court can not accede to her request to allow her to withdraw her allegations against the husband, as it will not do any good to their matrimonial relations.

(3) (Urmila Devi & other Vs. Ravi Prakash)> (DMC 1984 (II), P.339, DEL HC.)> > It states as: Wife baselessly and falsely alleging the husband as “Drunkard, gambler & womaniser” – Amounts to cruelty.> > Parties married o 18-11-71 at Meerut and one daughter Neelam and son Neeraj born. The husband was daily traveling by train to attend his duties at Delhi.> > Husband alleged that she has never bothered to take care of the female child nor she ever tried to meet her and she has ruined the life of the husband and the minor children. In her notice, she made allegations against him and his character by saying that he was a drunkard, gambler and characterless. These allegations caused mental pain and agony in his mind which amounts to cruelty; again she repeated these same allegations in her written statement.> > > Held that, unfounded and false allegations by wife against her husband in her notice, maintenance application and in her written statement that the husband is drunkard, gambler and womanizer are the acts amounted to cruelty and as such having made such allegations, it cannot be said that she was not committing the act of cruelty to the extent required by law to be harmful and injurious for the husband.> > Further, held that – one act of cruelty is enough to dissolve the marriage and persistence is not required.

(4) (Sushil Kumar Verma Vs. Vsha)> AIR. 1987 (Del)86 = D.M.C. 1986 (2), 25, Del H.C.)=1986> AIR C.C. 890 1986 Marr L.J. 375=1986 (2) HDR. 104=1987> Mat L.R. 93.> > It states as: Wife terminated pregnancy without consent of the husband.> > The parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 23-11-1980 at Delhi. The wife is stated to have left the husband on 15-2-1981.> > The husband asserted that the wife is guilty of cruelty as she has taken steps to take the medicine and entered a Nursing Home for the purposes of terminating the pregnancy.> > The husband has deposed that he had not given his consent to the wife for the termination of her pregnancy.> > From the above facts it is quite apparent that she had got pregnant after having married the appellant husband; that she did not want this child and so she had the pregnancy terminated.> > Held, that aborting the fetus in the very first pregnancy by a deliberate act, without the consent of the husband, would amount to cruelty.> > It is already held in case reported as Deepak Kumar Arora V. Sampuran Arora, 1 (1983) D.M.C. 182; “If however, a wife undergoes abortion with a view to spite the husband, the it may, in certain circumstances, be contended that the act of getting herself aborted has resulted in a cruelty.

(5) (Manorama Vs. Karna Singh)> (D.M.C. 1983 (1) 366 (P&H)> > It states as: Wife adopted continuous disrespectful attitude towards husband and his family members – she even not attending funeral of father-in-law – Wife held guilty of mental cruelty – Divorce decreed.> > The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25th April, 1969 and out of that wedlock, a son was borned in the year 1972.> > Allegations of the husband were that the treatment of the wife towards him has been cruel in as much as, she always adopted disrespectful attitude and misbehavior towards him. She used foul filthy and abusive language towards him in the presence of his parents and other persons. She also did not pursue her domestic affairs and during all this time she used to pick up quarrels with her in laws without any reason or cause. Her behavior and attitude has always been injurious to his health and welfare. The conduct of the wife, according to the husband amount to cruelty affecting his mental peace making him unable to perform his official duty properly, and this caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband that living with her would be mental torture. Even the wife did not come to condole the death of his father who had died on 9-9-1979. Consequently, the husband filed the divorce petition on 24-9-79.> > The wife denied all the allegations of her bad conduct and cruelty towards her husband his parents, as alleged. According to her, the real bone of contention is that the husband is in the habit of taking liquor and she used to request him to give up this habit, but he used to take it ill and rebuke her.> > Held, that her conduct has been blame worthy to such an extent that she even did not attend the funeral ceremony of her father-in-law. This certainly hurt the feelings and sentiments of her husband and it appears that on that account the present petition for divorce was filed immediately within a month thereto.> > Observed that Law does not require that at the first appearance of a cruel act. The other spouse must leave the matrimonial home lest the continued cohabitation be construed as Condonation.> > Mere fact that the spouse continued to share a common home during or for some time after the spell of cruelty is not sufficient to prove Condonation… as held in Dr. N.G. Dastane’s case.

(6) (Usha Vs. Vimal Kumar)> (D.M.C. 1987 (1), P.164, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife scuffled with the husband – Slapped him – she living separately and doing service & refused to come back – Her improper behavior with him.> > Parties married in 1974 and they resided together at Manasa. Thereafter, she has been residing away from her husband’s home and is in service.> > Husband filed divorce suit on the ground that in 1975, he had occasion to meet her and had then directed her to accompany him, she had refused to do so and had engaged herself in marpit (scuffle) with him and had also slapped him, and had also threatened him to kill. Her behavior with him and with the persons of his family was not proper. She used to disobey his mother and she has subjected her to unbecoming behavior. She deserted him.> > Observed, that in 1977, she without seeking her husband’s approval had been to Bhopal for training and thereafter is in service. All this is clearly indicative of the fact that at a very early stage she had taken a decision to live away from the conjugal home. Further, if the husband, from the very inception had any motive of divorcing her and of remarrying he could have instituted suit much earlier. He instituted the suit in 1983 when he found that there is no possibility of her returning to home.> > Held that, the words “treated with cruelty” imply harsh conduct of a certain intensity and persistence, which would make it almost impossible to operate the marriage.> > Legislature has left it to the courts to determine on the facts of each case whether the conduct amounts to cruelty and while deciding case, under this provision, courts would keep in mind the principle that relief is granted not only to protect a spouse from physical injury, but also from danger to mental health.

(7) (Saroj Vs. Dashrath)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 277, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife indifferent to household duties – often go to her parents house – quarrels with husband – Got search warrant through her parent on false allegations – Caused humiliation to the husband.> > The parties were married on 10-5-1987, and they lived as husband and wife at Indore, where her parents also live. A child named Meeraj was born to them. Thereafter, the relations became strained. The wife who has been employed as a Teacher even from before the marriage, became indifferent to the household needs and would not cook the meals and would return to her parent’s house which is also in Indore. On opposition by the husband, the wife used to quarrel with the husband. During the continuance of such strained relations her parents made an application u/s 100 of Cr.P.C. for issuing a search warrant for her production before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The police searched her out from the husband’s house when he was out and produced before the S.D.M. who put her in rescue home and from there; she was set to liberty to her parent’s house. In that proceeding, all sorts of false allegations and charges were leveled against the husband. After recording her statement, the learned S.D.M. did not find that her confinement was wrongful. However, since she wanted to keep herself away, from the husband, the aforesaid order was passed. That proceeding resulted in humiliation and mental agony.> > Held, that the wife made false accusation against the husband in the proceeding before the S.D.M. for issue of search warrant. The allegations were found to be false. In such a situation, one cannot escape concluding that the husband must have suffered lot of humiliations followed by mental agony, amounting to cruelty. The decree for divorce is therefore confirmed.>

(8) (Prakashchandra Vs. Radharani)> (D.M.C. 1986 (2) 376, M.P.)> > It states as: Wife insisting the husband to provide money for her parents – Husband failing – Beating the child – Quarrelling – Falsely alleging demand of dowry by husband.> > The parties are residents of Indore and were married on 19-4-1980 according to Hindu rites. As a result of their wedlock, they have also a son. The appellant-husband alleged that the wife always treated him with cruelty. She used to insist on sparing money for payment to her parents and on refusal always quarreled with him. She expressed her annoyance by indiscriminate beating of the child. On account of her quarrelsome habit, he, on his transfer from Bhopal to Indore was forced to live separate from his parents. She however, continued pressing demands for money for her parents and on his refusal as before, she picked up quarrel with him and finally deserted him o 25-09-1981, after throwing the child at his mother. After about an hour, she came back with their parents and uncle and forcibly took away the child.> > Observed the falsity of her defince that the husband used to demand dowry of Rs. 1000 and a gold chain is exposed by the fact that she had to admit that she never mentioned about the alleged demand in any of the letters sent by her to her father. This court is legitimately entitled to draw an adverse inference by non-production of those letters and non examination of her father, though alive and available.> > Held, that she treated the husband with cruelty and she has not been able to substantiate her defence story. The husband has discharged his part of the burden that she treated him with cruelty and deserted him for more than statutory period of two years. Since, she did not justify her separate residence; the husband is entitled to a decree for divorce on both grounds viz. cruelty and desertion.

(9) (Kuldip Kaur Vs. Premsingh)> (DMC 1986 (2), 334, P&H.)> > It States as: Wife left the matrimonial house without any justification – was of un-accomadative nature – not willing to do domestic works.> > Briefly, the fact are that the parties were married on March 9th, 1980, according to Hindu rites at Bhawarigarh, Dist. Sangrur. The petitioner-husband was a Clerk in the Punjab and Sind bank at Samana, while the wife was a teacher in Govt. Girls School, Sector 21, Chandigarh.> > It is averred by the husband that the wife was of an unaccommodating nature and was not willing to do domestic work. He, therefore, had to cook meals to avoid confrontation. A son was born to the wife out of the wedlock on 25-8-1981. The husband called his mother for looking after the child, but the wife started misbehaving and picking up quarrels with her on one excuse or other. On 20-2-1982, she left his house and went to reside at her brother’s house. In spite of his efforts, no compromise could be arrived at between the parties.> > Evidence with corrobation by witnesses came on record supporting the contentions of the husband.> > Held, that the wife has to share the burdens of the husband. According to our culture and heritage, it is considered to be the duty of the lady not only to look after her husband and the children, but also to look after her in-laws.> > Further, held that the wife should not have left the house of the husband on that ground.> ———-

(10) (Rajni Vs. Ashok)> (D.M.C. 1978 (1), P. 286, M.P. High Court)> > It states as: Wife causing mental tension to husband by her conduct and by her improper development of mind – Held, mental cruelty to husband.> > After marriage on 20-5-1985, the petitioner wife lived with the husband for about a month and thereafter she is living away from him. During this period the evidence on the side of the husband came on record that her conduct was not that of a person of sound mind. His version is that the resides in the upper storey of a building and the bathroom in half naked condition for the upper storey. When asked for prepare three thalis, she placed six on the table, she falsely accused one of his guest of theft of an egg etc., which evidence is supported by other witnesses.> Even the trial judge observed that according to her she has not singe the written statement, she does not know what is meant by guests, she does not know why marriage is performed and what is the relationship between the husband and wife, she does not know what is sexual intercourse she does not know with whom she used to sleep etc., her evidence clearly `proves’ that the case is not one of mere dullness of intellect but goes beyond that.> > Observed that, she is suffering from mental disorder, and the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with her.> > In this instant case, it is held that the wife can be said to have treated the husband with cruelty, despite her disabled mind, within the meaning of S. 13(1)(ia).> > Observed that for legal cruelty for matrimonial cause, it is not necessary that physical violence must be proved. Ordinarily treating a person with cruelty implies an intentional or willful conduct, studied neglect and indifference or calculated and conscious behavior occasioning pain to the person concerned.> > But, also already held that `cruelty’ as a matrimonial offence may be found without there being the element of intention, as in case of `insanity’ – (Jia Lal Abrol’s case – (AIR 1978 J & K, 67)> ———— –>>

(11) 1995 (II) DMC 444> 1995 (II) HLR 97 Meena Rani Vs. Madanlal> (Punjab & Haryana) Justice: Gharjavani> > It states as: Sec. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Husband’s divorce case on ground of cruelty and desertion – wife left matrimonial home without any reasonable ground – she was employed but not accounting for her salary to the husband nor disclosing where she used to spend it-staying away with her parents of and on without informing her husband – Refused to live with husband and rather the wife and her mother pressing him to live at the house of her mother as Gharjavani. Held all these acts amounts to cruelty – Trial Court rightly granted divorce in favour of husband – Appeal of wife also dismissed.> ———— –>>

(12) 1987 (1) DMC 259> AIR 1988 Delhi page 37,> 1987 Marr. LJ 217 (1987) (I) HLR 354> Hem Chandra Misra Vs. Smt. Satyh Misra> > It states as: Sec. 13 (1)(ia)(ib) – Cruelty – wife living apart for 3 years – Husband making several efforts but she refused to came back – wife abusing towards her husband in presence of other members of the house – Her conduct amounts to cruelty.

IPC 406:

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

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

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

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.Y.Eqbal

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

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

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

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

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.

25.

Feroza Mahboob Versus Qamar Ali and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Gulab C.Gupta

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of discharge order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1987

Citation(s) :     1987(3) Crimes 846

Wife filed a complaint against her husband u/s 405, 406 IPC for failing to return the ornaments, clothes etc. received by wife from her parents at the time of marriage which were delivered to the husband but were not returned to her at the time of divorce – Held – Magistrate cannot discharge the husband as prima facie case against him for criminal breach of trust had been made out – Impugned order quashed.

26.

Harbans Lal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.D.Bajaj

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint, Cheating and criminal breach of trust – Distinction, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      494, 495, 420, 406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 385, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 130 (HC)

Offence u/s 420, 406, 498-A, 494, 495 IPC – Petitioners, in-laws of respondent, charged with said offences in a complaint – Complaint has been against husband, father and mother-in-law, two sister-in-laws and their husband – Petition for quashment of proceedings and FIR – High Court held that FIR and complaint liable to be set aside – Respondent has made no specific allegations of maltreatment against the petitioners – No specific entrustment of stridhan articles against them – Further, cheating and criminal breach of trust are two difference offences and cannot coexist without specific allegations of entrustment of articles – The allegations made against petitioner are baseless and vague – FIR and complaint quashed – Petition allowed.

27.

Dr. Ashwani Kumar Juneja and others Versus Aruna Kumari

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 95, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 573 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Wife filed complaint wherein, apart from husband and his mother, 10 close relatives of husband were also implicated – Marriage between parties was solemnized at Pathankot – Dowry articles allegedly entrusted at Ludhiana – Thus, it is unbelievable that the said relatives would come to Ludhiana to take dowry articles – Also, such relations used to reside separately from the husband and in-laws – Allegations that the relatives of the husband used to beat the complainant were found to be vague – Effect of – Held – Complaint filed with an oblique motive – Complaint and consequent proceedings qua relatives of husband except husband and his mother quashed.

28.

Harjeet Singh Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) Crimes 501

Criminal breach of trust / Cruelty – FIR – Petition seeking quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings – Dissolution of marriage between parties by divorce in pursuance of compromise between them – Dowry articles had been given to respondent-wife – She gave affidavit expressing her desire not to persue the criminal case – Case is not likely to result in conviction – Held – Proceedings and FIR quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.

29.

Dr. Krishan Kumar Versus Sunil

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Second complaint – Maintainability, Quashing of summoning order, Suppression of material facts

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 506                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 8

Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint – Second on the issue and facts similar to the first one – Fact of dismissal of earlier complaint on ground of default on part of complainant to appear, not disclosed in second complaint – No exceptional circumstances mentioned which could justify the filing of second complaint – Held – Second complaint, a gross abuse of process of Court – Complaint, order for summons and proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

30.

Faqir Chand and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Dowry demand, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 404                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 23 (HC)

Offence under – Father of deceased daughter complained against husband and father-in-law regarding alleged demand of dowry and maltreatment – Dowry items retained by in-laws – During pendency of proceedings, mutual settlement arrived at between the parties as the claim of complainant was satisfied between parties, leading to the quashing of proceedings.

31.

 Harbans Lal Versus Rama Rani

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of inquiry order, Absence of specific allegation, Vague allegations, False implication

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 682

 Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC r/w Sec. 340 IPC – Petitioners, parents-in-law of respondent, charged with said offence in an complaint – Complaint was related to maltreatment, cruelty and return of stridhan – However, Magistrate has refused to issue process against them – Husband was entrusted to return the articles – However, ASJ ordered Magistrate to institute inquiry against the petitioners –  Petition for quashment of order of ASJ – High Court held that in absence of specific allegations regarding maltreatment and entrustment of stridhan against petitioners, no inquiry can be made against them – Such persons cannot be arraigned in such proceedings – Respondent in the instant case is trying to implicate petitioners by baseless and vague allegations – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed.

 32.

 Devender Kumar Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.K.Singh

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Desertion by husband, Cruelty

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     III(1997) CCR 24

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Husband deserting wife – Whether amounts to cruelty? [No] – Meaning of “cruelty” – Varying types of cruelty do not always come under the ambit of Sec.498A – Held – Office not established – “Cruelty” under explanation to Sec. 498-A IPC – Meaning – Discussed.

33.

Chander Prakash @ Chander Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  P.K.Bahri

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Appreciation of evidence – Acquittal

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      300, 302, 34, 120-B, 406                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995 CRI. L. J. 3028, 1995(2) C.C.Cases 429 (HC), II(1995) CCR 322 (DB), 1995 JCC 665 

Husband killed by wife with the help of co-accused – Reason for killing that wife was illicit relation with co-accused – Case diary tempered by the IO by inserting some pages – Where statement of child witness not recorded promptly – And vital improvements in testimony – Possibilities of witness being tutored cannot be overlooked – Held – It is not safe to place reliance on such testimony unless corroborated by any other evidence – Set aside the order of Trial Court – Conviction not maintainable – Appeal allowed.

34.

Chandra Parkash and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Usha Mehra

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Cruelty and demand of dowry not mentioned in divorce petition – No effect in criminal case

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996 CRI. L. J. 3443, 1996(2) C.C.Cases 344 (HC)

Petition filed u/s 482 of the code for quashing the complaint on the grounds that the details of the demand of dowry and cruelty were not made in divorce petition filed by the complainant was not tenable as truthfulness regarding the complaints cannot be entertained by invoking inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the code – No merits – Held – Petition dismissed.

35.

Dhan Raj Thapar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Ujagar Singh

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Payment to wife for withdrawal of case, Quashing of summoning order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(2) C.C.Cases 346 (HC)

Wife / petitioner-3 claimed maintenance from husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Husband filing suit against wife for divorce – Both withdrawing cases after compromise – Husband to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to wife in lieu of dowry articles through petitioner-1 – Draft delivered to wife by petitioner-1 after she surrendered her right in mutual consented divorce case – Divorce decree obtained afterwards – Husband claiming being cheated, as divorce decree should have been obtained before the payment – Held, no cheating done – Draft paid according to the terms of compromise – Corroborated in joint petition for divorce by mutual consent – Sec.482 Cr.P.C.- Complaint and order for summons quashed – Petition allowed.

36.

Bishamber Lal Suneja and others Versus Sunita Rani

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Harbans Singh Rai

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1989

Citation(s) :     1989 C.C.Cases 88 (HC)

Criminal breach of trust – Complaint u/s 4, 6 Dowry Act – Dismissed – Second complaint u/s 406 IPC on similar facts – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings – Allegations regarding entrustment of specific dowry articles to specific accused not made – Also it was not mentioned as to how accused persons had misappropriated the same – Effect of – Held – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

37.

Charanjit Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.S.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Dowry demand

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 233

Territorial jurisdiction – Marriage took place at Jalandhar, where dowry articles were also given – Parents of bride reside at Panipat – Accused made demand for dowry at Panipat after the marriage and insisted that only after being paid Rs. 4 lacs, they would take bride to matrimonial house – Registration of FIR u/s 498-A, 406 IPC at Panipat – Whether Court at Panipat has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? – Yes, as cause of action partly arose at Panipat.

38.

Darshan Lal and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Abuse of process of Court, Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 405                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) Crimes 77, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 373 (HC)

FIR filed by wife u/s 406 IPC alleging retention of her dowry articles – Quashing of – Petitioners, except the husband were involved in litigation just to wreck vengeance – Allegations qua them were vague – However, allegations were specifically made against the husband whose case is distinguishable from the other petitioners – Held – Dragging of relations of husband into the prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law – FIR qua petitioners except husband quashed – Petition partly allowed.

39.

Desh Ram Pal Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Usha Mehra

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Limitation, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993 JCC 50

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filed complaint against husband alleging retention of her dowry articles lying with husband – Petitioner for quashing complaint on ground of limitation – For last 15 years, wife is at her parental house – Demanding return of her dowry articles from the husband / petitioner to which husband denied – Instant complaint – Whether time barred complaint? [No] – Held – Although entrustment made 15 years ago, but limitation effective from the date of demand and subsequent refusal by opposite party – Complaint, as made on 2.3.1992, not barred by limitation – Complaint maintainable

40.

Champa Rani and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.D.Bajaj

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Difference between Complaint case and a case institution on police report, Direction to register the case – Validity

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(2) C.C.Cases 307 (HC)

Case registered on direction of Magistrate in terms of Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. on the complaint filed by the complaint before the court – Basic distinction between complaint case and a case institution on a police report – Held – Judiciary should not transgress police jurisdiction and make orders – This creates a bad precedent – Complaint and the proceedings based upon quashed – Petition allowed.

41.

Col. Shamsher Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Nijjar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 234

Compounding of offence u/s 320 Cr.P.C. – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR lodged u/s 406, 498-A IPC was quashed by the High Court in view of compromise reached between the parties.

42.

Harinder Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Gupta

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Violation of condition of settlement in civil suit, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     IV(1999) CCR 33

Misappropriation of Istridhan / cruelty – Dissolution of marriage between petitioner-1 and respondent-2 by way of settlement – Conditions of settlement mentioned in joint statement of the parties – Despite that, petitioner-1 was vigorously pursuing the guardianship petition filed by him, before Guardianship Judge – Petitioner seeking quashing of FIR not on plea that no prima facie offence is being made out from allegations made in FIR, but on premises that respondent-2 had given undertaking in terms of settlement, not to proceed further and to aid in its withdrawal – Held – Unless petitioner-1 complies with obligation on their part by withdrawing guardianship petition, they cannot rely on statement given by respodent-2 in criminal proceedings and claim the relief – No ground to quash criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed.

43.

Bal Kishan and others Versus Poonam Verma

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  I.S.Tiwana

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Juvenile, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1987

Citation(s) :     1987(1) RCR (Criminal) 657 , 1987 C.C.Cases 429 (HC)

Wife filing complaint against her husband and other relations for offence u/s 406, 405 IPC alleging that the accused persons turned her out of from the house and refused to return her dowry articles – Summons order issued – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summons order and consequent proceedings – Wife did not made any allegations of entrustment of dowry articles – Most of the petitioners were minor on alleged date to incident – Effect of – Held – Complaint and consequent proceedings amounts to misuse of process of Court – Quashed against petitioners except qua husband – Petition allowed.

44.

Bagh Singh and others Versus State of and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 109                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) Crimes 83

Offences under – FIR – Petition u/s 482 of the Code to quash FIR and consequent proceedings – Territorial jurisdiction – Offence u/s 498-A IPC committed in District Ropar – Thus, it is not within the competent jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala to investigate and try the accused for offence u/s 498-A IPC – Also, offence u/s 406 IPC was not made out as there was no specific allegation of entrustment of articles to any of the accused – Held – FIR and proceedings flowing therefrom quashed – Petition allowed.
 

45.

Bairo Prasad and others Versus Laxmibai Pateria

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.M.Lal

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subject(s) :  Limitation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991 CRI. L. J. 2535

Complaint for offence u/s 406 IPC – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Case u/s 406 IPC prima faciely made out – Limitations for taking cognizance – Held – Where complainant viz. daughter-in-law alleged that her in-laws did not pay heed to her repeated demands for return of her istridhan, Sec. 472 Cr.P.C. and not Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. would apply for taking of cognizance of offence.

46.

Bawa Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 20, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 403 (Supp.)

 Sec. 406 / 498-A IPC – Acts of cruelty committed at matrimonial home at Gurdaspur – Wife thereafter stayed with her parents at Ambala – No jurisdiction vested in Ambala court for offence u/s 498-A – Details of articles entrusted to individual petitioners not given – Fact that complainant stayed with husband for a period of four years show that complaint may be confined to husband alone – Held – Proceedings against in-laws except the husband quashed.

47.

Adarsh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Brar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, FIR – Reliability, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 667, II(1992) CCR 1265

FIR under by wife against entire family of husband-accused for misappropriation of stridhan – Allegations neither appealing to common sense nor seem probable – Vague – Held – FIR as regards sister, brother and brother”s wife quashed as before groom”s parents they are not supposed to accept dowry – FIR – Value of – In such cases usually estranged wife can even go to extent of implicating as many relatives as possible – No rule that averments made in FIR to be taken as gospel truth.

48.

Bhupinder Kaur Verses S. Ajaib Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.M.Tandon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Ingredient of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1982

Citation(s) :     1982 C.C.Cases 26 (HC)

Criminal breach of trust – Complaint by husband against wife and her parents – For misappropriation of ornaments given by the husband – Petition for quashing of  complaint – Held – Articles given at the time of marriage to the wife become her own – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

49.

Deepak Sharma Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Omission to use words entustment / demand – Effect, Duty of police to recover / return dowry items, Cruelty – Meaning

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 116 (Supp.)

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – What? – “Cruelty” includes unlawful demand of property – Does not include ”entrustment” or ”demand” – FIR includes complaint regarding demand of money and, failure to fulfill the demand resulting in her beating and attempt to strangulation – Not allowing to collect her clothes and forbidding her to enter house for ever, constitutes criminal breach of trust even when specific words ”entrustment” and ”demand” were not used – Recovery and return of dowry items not forming part of legal obligation by the police, but a part of investigation – Such articles if unclaimed by husband or any other relative of husband furnish proof that certain items of dowry which were recovered were given at the time of marriage – Held – Plea that purpose of filing the complaint is merely to recover the item of dowry is not tenable and the real purpose of complaint being to punish the guilty under the law – Definition of ”Cruelty” – Discussed – Petition dismissed.

50.

Bimla Devi and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Incomplete complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406, 420                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 470, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 211 (HC)

Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Maintenance application against husband u/s 125 Cr.P.C.- No requirement of mention of allegations in the application – Complaint not specific as to which articles given as gifts to parents in-law – However, theses form part of the property in her matrimonial home – Held – Normal practice to give away gifts to the relatives of bridegroom – Immaterial whether they were living separately – Complaint against the in-laws not specifying which gifts marked for which person on the bridegroom”s side – Allegations not found to be fabricated or a result of afterthought – Offence u/s 406 established.

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.

70.

Asha Devi Versus Suman Lata

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 667

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife complaining against husband and other relations – Relations did not reside with couple – Nothing alleged in complaint that they took to their respective houses – Probably they were implicated due to their being relatives of – Held – Court should not encourage wife”s such attitude and conduct – Proceedings qua petitioners (relations) quashed.

71.

Anil Kumar Versus Rita Kumari

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  N.K.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(1) C.C.Cases 355 (HC), 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 813

Complaint for offences under – Allegation of dowry demand, maltreatment, abusing, etc. made against 5 persons – Nothing specifically alleged against them as to what article was entrusted to which accused – Demand for return of articles and that it was declined, not averred – Allegations being general and vague in nature – Held – It was necessary for complainant to make specific and distinct allegations against each accused showing entrustment of articles to them and misappropriation thereof with dishonest intention – Impugned order Magistrate summoning accused persons for offence u/s 406 IPC set aside – Petition allowed.

72.

Angrez Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 53, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 563 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint by wife – Quashment of – Complaint suffered from inherent infirmity of vague allegations of entrustment that can not be cured from testimony of witnesses during trial – Complaint manifestly filed with mala fide intention, implicating even the relatives of husband (sister, brothers and parents) who resided separately – Held – Complaint quashed – Petition allowed.

73.

Amandeep Singh Grover Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 429

Offence under – FIR – Parties litigating for over 4 years – Later on, compromised – Wife getting amount as her future maintenance and Istridhan – Held – Marriage dissolved u/s 13B of Hindu Marriage Act as parties are living separately and had no chance to reconcile – FIR quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

74.

Anil Sharma Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Validity of framing of charges, Standard of proof, Criminal trial

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      304-B, 498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1999(3) C.C.Cases 178 (HC)

Charges framed under – Challenged in revision petition – Held – Strict standard of proof is normally applied to at the final stage of consideration to find out as to whether materials collected by prosecuting agency disclose a prima facie case against accused or not – Court while framing charges is not required to go deep into the probative value of evidence on record – Test to determine a prima facie case, would depend upon facts of each case and laying any general rule or principle valid for all occasions is not practicable – Court is under duty to frame charges, if it is of opinion that that commission of offence is probable consequence – Revision dismissed – Criminal trial – Where Sessions Judge examined all vital witnesses and their evidence is not cotroverted by petitioners, interfering at fag end of trial would not be proper.

75.

Anjali Sharma Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Acts of cruelty, Discharge – Validity

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 303, 2000(1) C.C.Cases 36 (HC), 2000(1) JCC 142

Complaint by wife under – Discharge by Magistrate u/s 498-A IPC and charges framed only u/s 406 IPC – Magistrate was of opinion that essentials of offence u/s 498-A IPC not made out – Whether correct? [No] – Held – Where accused-husband allowed his wife to be ill-treated by relations, called her ugly and deserted her without reasonable cause, such willful conduct amounts to legal cruelty – Impugned order of discharge set aside – Direction to Magistrate to frame charges u/s 498-A IPC – Petition allowed.

76.

Amar Bharti Versus State of Punjab

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.L.Jain

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Jurisdiction to grant bail

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1981

Citation(s) :     1981 C.C.Cases 37 (HC)

  Offence under – Territorial jurisdiction to grant bail – Whether Court in whose jurisdiction accused was arrested had power to grant bail? [Yes].

77.

Gurmukh Singh and others Versus Bhupinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      323, 363, 406, 420, 506, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 517 (HC), 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 185

Territorial jurisdiction of criminal Courts to entertain complaint – Neither any of the accused persons against whom the complaint was filed by the complainant wife for causing harassment and cruelty came within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court nor any specific allegation  of entrustment of dowry articles to any of them other than the husband – Complaint and summoning order qua them quashed.

78.

Anil Bhardwaj and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  D.R.Khanna

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Case of misappropriation between spouses

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 378, 406                           Year(s) :  1985

Citation(s) :     1985 CRI. L. J. 613, 1985 C.C.Cases 36 (HC)

Complaint for offences under – Allegation of wife that she was turned out of her matrimonial house but dowry articles retained – Husband and in-laws implicated – Submission of charge-sheet – Held – Prima facie offence made out – No ground to quash the complaint – Offence of misappropriation or theft can be made out where exclusive property of one of the spouses is being unwarrantedly taken away or misappropriated by the other.

79.

Anokh Singh Versus Paramjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Entrustment, Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(2) C.C.Cases 263 (HC)

Offence under – Complaint by wife against husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of complaint – Allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles to particular accused vague, general and non specific – No allegation that she was refused to such articles when she demanded for the same – Moreover, Court at Faridkot cannot take cognizance of the offence as the allegation was that husband and sister-in-law demanded Rs. 5000/- from the complainant at Aurangabad – No prima facie case u/s 498-A IPC made out even against father-in-law and another sister-in-law as the date, time and manner of alleged demand of Rs. 5000/- and that they subjected complainant to cruelty on such account was not disclosed in the complaint – Held – Averments made in complaint not sufficient for taking cognizance for offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Complaint and proceedings against petitioner quashed – However, it is open for Trial Court to take action against husband of the complainant – Petition allowed.

80.

Anil Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Kumaran

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Applicability of provision, Power to quash proceedings after filing of charge-sheet, Complaint against friend of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     III(1997) CCR 506, 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 773

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – FIR under – Even though FIR did not disclose any offence, police filed charge-sheet before Court – Whether it is open for Court to invoke its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings? [No] – Once charge-sheet has been filed, Trial Court would deal with the matter to find out as to whether allegations are true or not and accused can raise his plea before Trial Court – Held – Sec. 498-A is not applicable to a person who is not relative of husband – Thus, petitioner, a friend of husband can not be proceeded against thereunder but as charge-sheet contained his name, proceedings against him cannot be quashed – Fact that age of petitioner is 90 years, he could hardly walk and is blind, not ground to quash FIR qua him – Petition dismissed.

81.

Anil Kumar Versus State of Punjab

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Kumaran

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Applicability of provision, Power to quash proceedings after submission of charge-sheet, Complaint against friend of husband, Expression “Cruelty” – Meaning

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     III(1997) CCR 506

Offence under – Complaint – Quashment of u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Charges framed and charge sheet submitted – Whether it is open for High Court to invoke its powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings? [No] – Held – Once charge sheet is filed, only Trial Court can deal with the matter and accused can raise his plea before Trial Court – Scope of Sec. 498-A IPC – Only husband and his relatives can be proceeded thereunder – Friend of husband do not come within its ambit, but as charge sheet has been filed, proceedings against him cannot be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Sec. 498-A do not speak of ”dowry” in terms of Sec. 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Meaning of term ”Cruelty” – Explained.

82.

Ajaib Kaur Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Assisting to take articles

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 376

Offence under – Complaint – Petitioners assisted bride”s husband in taking articles to another village to set up home there – Held – No offence u/s 406 IPC committed by petitioners.

83.

Ajit Singh and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.M.Punchhi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Claim of father of bride for dowry articles, Civil dispute

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1983

Citation(s) :     1983 C.C.Cases 116 (HC), 1983(1) Crimes 895

Criminal breach of trust – Sec. 15 of Hindu Succession Act – Father of deceased (wife of accused) initiating criminal proceedings against husband of the deceased for alleged misappropriation of dowry articles and claiming for same – Whether complained by father maintainable? [No] – Held – Dispute of civil nature.

84.

Gulab Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Presumption, Complaint against relatives of deceased, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 492 (HC) 

Dowry case – Complaint – FIR filed by the bride against the husband for misappropriation of dowry articles where both of them had lived together for 8 months after the marriage – It was presumed that dowry articles must have been given to the wife by the relatives during this period – Held – No offence was made out u/s 406 IPC against the relatives of the husband as the motive against the relatives was very bleak in the circumstances of the case as there was no specific averments of entrustment of dowry articles to any particular relative – However, case shall proceed against petitioners for offences u/s 498-A IPC – Petition partly allowed.

85.

Amrit Lal Sharma and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Malacious prosecution, Entrustment, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 34                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 125 (HC)

Malicious prosecution – Proof of – Complaint for offence under – Issuance of summons order against husband”s sister and brother (petitioners) – No specific allegation of mode of entrustment of dowry articles to them disclosed in complaint – Also, they used to reside at far off places – Specification of what articles given to them not given in reply – Held – Implication of petitioners mala fide – Impugned order of summoning petitioners qua them quashed.

86.

Amar Jit Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Sat Pal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994 JCC 149

Proceedings under – Parties had compromised before ADJ to withdraw case, pending between them – Also, on such compromise, ADJ had already passed a decree of dissolution of marriage – Held – Proceedings set aside as continuation of same would not serve any purpose.

87.

Amitabh Adhar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment, Ingredient of offence, Applicability of provision, Validity of framing of charges

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      506, 498-A, 406, 509, 34                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000 CRI. L. J. 4772, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 365, 2000 CRI. L. J. 4772, 2000(2) C.C.Cases 28 (HC)

 Charge sheet for offences under submitted – MM directing to frame charges thereupon – Challenged – FIR devoid of any averment regarding offence u/s 406 IPC – No specification of dowry articles as entrusted to petitioner-2, in case diary statement – As petitioner-2 used to reside separately with complainant, not probable that she would give dowry articles to petitioner-2 – Essential ingredients of offence u/s 506, 509 IPC not made out from averments made in FIR or case diary statement as no alarm caused to the complainant by threats extended by the  petitioners – No averment of harassment on account of dowry made anywhere in FIR or case diary – Held – Manifested error committed by Magistrate in framing said charges where material adduced by prosecution give no suspicion against petitioners – Petitioner allowed – Impugned order qua petitioners set aside – Criminal intimidation – Sec. 506 IPC not attracted on mere threat causing no alarm to complainant.

88. NA on Judis

 Mohan Baitha and others Versus State of Bihar and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.B.Pattanaik

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Offence in same course of transaction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      304-B, 498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     II(2001) CCR 73 (SC)

 Territorial jurisdiction – If same offence is committed more than once by same person(s), it can be tried at one Trial, provided the offences form one series of acts and form the same transaction – Circumstantial evidence regarding proximity of time, place, continuation of action and commonality of intent being ingredients to decide whether the acts performed belong to same transaction – Held – High Court correctly applying Sec. 220 Cr.P.C. to conclude regarding the jurisdiction of Magistrate at Bhagalpur to try offence u/s 304-B, 498-A, 406 IPC.

89.

Mohan Lal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Goel

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 534, III(1999) CCR 362, 2000(2) JCC 294

Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Appeal against conviction – Territorial jurisdiction – Wife leaving her matrimonial home in Distt. Kangra due to cruelty meted out to her – Leaving the town to go to live with her mother in Delhi – Alleged acts of cruelty cannot be said to have been continuing in Delhi also – Held – ASJ wrong in concluding that cruelty was a continuing offence – Day-to-day fresh offence not committed by the accused in a continuing manner – Delhi Court does not have jurisdiction to try out the case.

90.

Mohan Lal Versus Ranjit Rani and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.S.Yadav

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of summoning order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1984

Citation(s) :     1984(3) Crimes 527

Offence under – Complaint against in-laws regarding demand for more dowry and criminal breach of trust – Prior to this, police helping respondent”s father to bring back his daughter from her in-laws house – Summons issued to the petitioner by the Magistrate – Petition for quashment of the summoning order – Held – No offence u/s 406 IPC made out – Petition allowed.

91.

Munish Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      506, 406, 420, 120-B, 384, 385                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) Crimes 418

Offence under – Complaint – Magistrate directing the police to investigate complaint – FIR – Accused praying for quashing of FIR – Compromise reached – Dissolution of marriage – Pre-arrest bail granted to accused – Held – FIR quashed – Petition allowed.

92.

Mohinder Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.L.Singhal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Absence of medical examination, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Beneficiary of dowry

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 326, 324, 323                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 376

FIR for offences under – Allegation against husband, his parents, brother and wife of brother of beating bride severely and turning her out of matrimonial house – No evidence regarding the medical examination of bride or that she sustained grievous injuries – Thus, no offence u/s 498-A IPC made out – Also, allegations regarding misappropriation of dowry articles were found vague as it was not stated as to which article was entrusted to which accused – Held – FIR for offence u/s 498-A IPC quashed against all the accused persons – Also, FIR for offence u/s 406 IPC quashed against husband”s brother and his wife as they were not expected to drive any benefit from dowry articles.

93.

Madhu Bala Mahajan Versus Sunayana Mahajan

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 392 (Supp.)

Complaint u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Summoning order – Petition against – Wife filed complaint against sister of her husband – It was alleged that dowry articles belonged to her given in marriage of sister – Considering the fact that accused was married in Nov. 1986, and complainant stayed at in-laws house till 20-9-1987, no objection was raised by complainant upto that date and doubt over raising issue after such a long time – Further, cruelty on the complainant by the brother on alleged instigation and provocation by accused are also vague – Held – In the circumstances of the case it can be said that accused was dragged into litigation just to seek vengeance from her brother with whom complainant had fallen out either on account of his misconduct or for some of his other demands – Complaint and proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

94.

Madhu Sharma and others Versus Dr. M. L. Sharma and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband, Territorial jurisdiction, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 507, 323                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 92 (HC), 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 187

Wife made allegations against mother-in-law and sister-in-law regarding torture and cruelty – FIR lodged – Petition against – Absence of any specific assertion in FIR regarding entrustment of dowry articles to any particular accused and also no demand to return dowry articles which petitioner refused – Allegations of cruelty or torture baseless – Divorce proceedings initiated by husband may be one of the reason to initiate criminal proceedings – Further, it could not be proved that petitioners instigated husband to slap wife when also she was threatened to kill wife in relation to dowry demand – Held – Proceedings liable to be quashed – As regards territorial jurisdiction, place where FIR was lodge and it has specifically been averred therein, has to be taken into account – In view of provisions of Sec. 181(4) Cr.P.C., Court where property subject matter of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach trust, was required to be returned would have jurisdiction to try said offence – Petition allowed.

95.

Maya Versus Sudesh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Bakhshish Kaur

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Taunting for inadequate dowry, Complaint against relatives of husband, Omission in complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 356, 2000(1) C.C.Cases 218 (HC)

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Dowry articles misappropriated – Wife complaining against husband and the three wives of husband”s brothers – Alleging taunts for insufficient dowry – However, not specifying the exact hurting words uttered by the petitioners – Date and time of such occurrences not specified in complaint – Petitioners (wives of husband”s brother) not living together – Held – Cruelty and criminal breach of trust not applicable – Order of  summons against petitioners dismissed – Petition allowed.

96.

Major Surinder Singh Choudhry and others Versus Prem Kumari and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  C.S.Tiwana

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1979

Citation(s) :     1979 C.C.Cases 16 (HC)

 Criminal breach of trust – Matrimonial offence – Held – No ingredients of Sec. 406 IPC and Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act disclosed in the entire complaint – No allegation to this effect – Complaint / proceedings quashed.

97.

Maninder Kaur Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.N.Kapoor

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Arraignment of additional accused

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999 III AD (Cr.) DHC. 53, III(1999) CCR 383

Arraignment of additional accused – Cruelty and misappropriation of stridhan – FIR regarding said offences registered against husband – MM on submission of charge sheet, summoned other persons of family of accused, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant – Held – Order of MM proper – Allegations made in FIR clearly attributed misappropriation of stridhan and dowry articles by accused persons, prima facie offence made out against them.

98.

Manas Kumar Dutta and others Versus Aloka Dutta

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.Gopalaswamy

Orissa High Court

Subject(s) :  Proceedings u/s 27 Hindu Marriage Act – Bar to avail remedy u/s 406 IPC

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991 CRI. L. J. 288

Stridhana – Proceedings of misappropriation of Stridhana property by the husband as well as in laws of the bride – Husband and in-laws were held guilty of criminal breach of trust and the proceedings u/s 27 of Hindu Marriage Act does not bar for availing the remedy by the bride u/s 406 of IPC – Ingredients – Explained.

99.

Mandeep Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Acts of cruelty, Dowry demand, Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 154

Cruelty and misappropriation of stridhan – Territorial jurisdiction – Matrimonial Courts of both the places at Mandi (HP) as well as at Amritsar had every jurisdiction to try and entertain the case registered u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Demand from husband and his relatives from the bride family of Rs. 5 lacs comes within the definition of the cruelty – Victim was also subjected to physical cruelty at Mandi (HP) after which she came to Amritsar to live with her parents.

100.

Nirmala and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.D.Bajaj

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Ingredient of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) C.C.Cases 155 (HC)

Complaint by husband against wife – Wife allegedly misappropriated gold and silver ornaments gifted by husband at the time of marriage – Whether offence against wife made out? [No] – Held – Gifts given to wife at the time of marriage acquire character of Stridhan – No ingredients of offence u/s 420 / 109 established – Complaint and proceedings quashed.

101.

 Nirmal Kaur Versus Balbir Singh and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Limitation, Quashing of complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 49

Death of wife – Husband retained dowry articles with him – Complaint by mother of deceased against husband claming dowry articles given in marriage which was performed more than 3 years back – It was not mentioned in the complaint to hold the articles in trust for the minor child left behind by the deceased – Whether complaint by mother of wife maintainable? [No] – Held – Complaint liable to be quashed – It was further observed to be beyond limitation as marriage was performed on 19.2.1987 and compliant was filed on 7.6.1990.

102.

Nirlape Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(3) Crimes 922, 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 531

Offence under – FIR registered – Compounding of offence – Accused and complainant entering into compromise and obtaining divorce by mutual consent – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and proceedings – Held – No useful purpose would be served in continuance of trial as wife was not likely to support the prosecution – FIR and proceedings quashed in interest of family and society.

103.

 Nand Lal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  P.K.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 506                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 78

Complaint by wife against husband – FIR registered u/s 498-A / 506 IPC – Settlement between husband and wife – Wife returned to matrimonial home alongwith children – Held – Once parties have amicably settled their disputes and differences, no useful purpose would be served to file challan in the Court and to proceed with trial – FIR and proceedings quashed.

104.

Om Parkash Kamboj and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 506                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 496 (HC)

Offence under – Complaint against husband and his relatives – Complainant having two children and was married 12 years ago – Petition for quashing of FIR by sister and brother-in-law of husband – Petitioners living separately – No specific allegation of entrustment of dowry article against them – Whether FIR and proceedings against petitioners liable to be quashed? [Yes].

105.

Naresh Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 225 (Supp.)

Offence u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Case against husband and in-laws – Pursuant to a compromise, parties started living together happily – Petition for quashing of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – Compromise found to be genuine – Evidence in support of prosecution case may not be forthcoming which will result in wastage of public time – Offence u/s 406 IPC allowed to be compounded by the parties and that u/s 498-A quashed.

106.

Nazir Ahmed Wani and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Arun B.Saharya

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint, Conduct of accused, Abuse of process of Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 482                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 618, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 419 (HC), 1991 JCC 241

Offence u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Parties settling the matter – Husband paying Rs. 60,000 to the wife towards satisfaction of all her claims – Wife demanding further amount and return of dowry articles – Not withdrawing complaint – Petition by husband u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings – Held – Conduct of wife amounts to harassment of her husband and continuous of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court – Complaint and proceedings quahsed.

107.

Niranjan Singh Versus Kulwant Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Sudhalkar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Continuing offence, Non mention of specific instances in complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 235

Cruelty – Complaint – Petition for quashing of proceedings on the ground that no specific instances of cruelty were given – Held – If harassment continues day to day, hour after hour, then wife is justified in not quoting every separate instance in the complaint because it is impossible to do so – Petition dismissed.

108.

Nihal Kaur and others Versus Bhupinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Absence of discreption of stolen property in report, Sanction, Quashing of summoning order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) C.C.Cases 434 (HC), 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 558

Offence u/s 406 / 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Summoning order against parents of husband – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing – No mention in the complaint regarding description of ornaments and of handing over of the same to petitioner-1 – Absence of requisite sanction u/s 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Held – No prima facie case against the petitioners – Proceedings quashed – Petition filed by husband of the respondent dismissed.

109.

Neeru and others Versus Rekha

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(1) C.C.Cases 515 (HC)

Offence u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Complaint – Petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of complaint and proceedings – No specific allegations against the sisters and brother of husband regarding entrustment of dowry articles – Allegations with regard to cruelty against them found to be vague and only a very small amount was given to them – Held – As no prima facie case made against petitioners, complaint and proceedings quashed.

110.

Neelam Versus Pawan Kumar and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.S.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Specific allegations, Validity of discharge

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(1) Crimes 213 (HC)

Criminal breach of trust – Complaint by wife – Specific allegations against accused persons for misappropriating dowry articles entrusted to them – Prima facie case against the accused persons made out – Whether order of Additional  Sessions Judge in discharging accused persons proper?[No].

111.

Pyare Lal Gupta and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 34                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     II(2000) CCR 313

Offence u/s 406, 498-A, 34 IPC – Compounding of – Parties entered into compromise – Held – Offences non-compoundable – Criminal proceedings not to be quashed if prima facie case made out by FIR – If same are quashed in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in view of settlement, proceedings of such offences would stand terminated for reason of compounding – Petition dismissed.

112.

Paramjit Singh and others Versus Harbans Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) Crimes 261

Complaint by wife – Summons issued to husband and his parents – Magistrate did not summon sisters of husband on the ground that three of them were married and two of them could not be said to have possessed the dowry article – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings – Complainat had levelled specific allegations against petioner and his parents regarding entrustment of dowry articles – Held – No interference was required in impugned order of summoning by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed.

113.

Paramjit Singh Versus Harbans Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Possession

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 302

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint was lodged against husband along with his parents and five sisters out of them three sisters were married and living separately – Held – Two remaining sisters who are not married can”t be possession dowry articles – Complaint against them was quashed – Dowry articles should be in possession of parents of husband.

114.

 Paramjit Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Amar Dutt

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 1

Offences under – Parties entered into compromise in matrimonial dispute and sorted out the entire dispute amicably by returning the dowry articles to the wife – Held – FIR quashed.

115.

Puran Singh and others Versus Surjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.S.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 121, 1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 611

Complaint u/s 406, 498A IPC against husband and parents-in-law – Entrustment of dowry articles at Fatehabad – Meeting between the parties where dowry demand was repeated held at Fatehabad, District Hissar – Complainant subjected to harassment and was turned out from matrimonial house in Ferozepur – Held – Court at Hissar had jurisdiction – Contention that allegation of entrustment were vague or that it was not stated as to whom entrustment of dowry articles was made, repelled – Proceedings not liable to be quashed.

116.

Prem Singh and others Versus Surta and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 608 

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint by wife – Allegations levelled in complaint did not specify time, date or month of harassment to which she was subjected – Neither was any specific article of Istridhan was stated to be handed over to any person by name – Held – Allegations of vague nature – Misappropriation not proved – Complaint quashed.

117.

Pardeep Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(3) RCR (Criminal) 176

 Quashing of proceedings – Offences under – Case against husband, his parents, brother in-law for cruelty and misappropriation of dowry articles – General allegations – Brother has limited chance to tell or ask in relation on husband and wife – No specific allegation against present petitioners (brother in-law of complainant) – Held – Proceeding against him quashed – Petition allowed.

118.

Pardeep Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Ujagar Singh

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988 C.C.Cases 581 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Compounding of offence – Parties enter into the compromise during pendency of the case – Permission for compromise – Held – Petition for compounding of offences allowed in the interest of justice – Proceedings quashed.

119.

Pardeep Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Right of parents of bride to get back dowry articles

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(3) RCR (Criminal) 9

Complaint by brother of deceased-bride u/s 406 IPC against husband and in-laws alleging that they did not return dowry articles – Unnatural death – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings on ground that after death of wife, husband is to inherit her items of dowry – Whether correct? [No] – Held – Provisions u/s 6(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act is a general exception to rule of inheritance contained in Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act – As in case in hand, where deceased died otherwise then due to natural causes within 7 years of her marriage, the dowry articles are required to be transferred to her parents instead of going to her husband – Petition dismissed.

120. I have

Pratibha Rani Versus Suraj Kumar and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.Murtaza Fazal Ali

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Restoration of complaint, Dowry articles – Joint property?

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1985

Citation(s) :     1985 C.C.Cases 25 (SC), 1985 CRI. L. J. 817, 1985(1) Crimes 614, 1985 CAR 96 (SC)

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint quashed by High Court – Validity – Evidence re-examined – Allegations in complaint clear, specific and unambiguous – Ingredients of offence made out by complaint – Held – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Complainant cannot be denied opportunity to prove her case – Complaint restored – Accused directed to be summoned and put to trial as per law – Wife can also file Civil Suit as alternative remedy – Dowry articles – Such property not a joint property of husband and wife who lived together – Refusal on part of husband to return the same to his wife at her demand would be an offence u/s 405, 406 IPC.

121.

Pramod Kumar Gupta and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Shiv Kumar Sharma

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Propriety of charges

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      306, 406, 498-A, 304-B                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     III(1998) CCR 545

Charges framed u/s 304B, 406, 498-A, 306 IPC – Deceased found dead in house of her parents under mysterious circumstances – Also, dead body of her daughter found – Three letters of deceased and statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C alleged illicit relation between petitioner and his sister-in-law – Statements of witnesses to implicate petitioner and his sister-in-law ex facie made out – Held – Not necessary to enquire into pros and cons of case by weighing evidence at such time – As far as petitioner Pradeep Kumar is concerned, there was nothing stated by witnesses so as to implicate him for alleged offences – No impropriety in framing of charges against petitioner and his sister-in-law.

122. AV on Judis

Prahlad Singh Bhati Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.T.Thomas

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Power of MM to grant bail in Sessions cases, Cancellation of bail, Bride burning case

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      302, 498-A, 306, 406                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     II(2001) CCR 69 (SC), 2001(2) Crimes 87 (SC)

Death of wife by burning – Reason being dowry – Responding released on bail by MM – Revision petition against, dismissed by single Judge of High Court – Instant appeal by father of deceased – Held – Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment – To be tried exclusively by Sessions Court – No jurisdiction of MM unless matter covered u/s 437 Cr.P.C. and MM ignored basic rules that govern grant of bail – Obligation to Adjudicate Pleas of Law not discharged by High Court – Initial grant of anticipatory bails u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for lesser offence not by itself entitle respondent for regular bail even if accused was found to be involved in murder case subsequently – When charges modified to aggravated crime, accused disentitled to liberty given to him regarding minor offences – Approach of Magistrate that no case was made out so as to cancel the bail was wrong – Impugned order of Magistrate and High Court set aside as being against law – Appeal allowed.

123.

Pradeep Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     II(1992) CCR 1301

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Criminal conspiracy – Complaint by wife against husband and all his relatives – Petition by husband to quash complaint – Held – Complaint as against brother of husband quashed as usually brother had little say in matrimonial life of his brother and sister-in-law – His implication was with oblique motive to seek revenge from husband – As regards petitioner and his parents, case not fit to quash impugned proceedings per se against them as they were obviously involved in demanding dowry.

124.

Pradipta Basu Roy Chowdhury Versus Babita Basu Roy Chowdhury and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.B.Mukherjee

Calcutta High Court

Subject(s) :  Dishonest intention, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      403, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) Crimes 397

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint by wife – Cognizance – Process issued – Petition to quash proceedings – Complaint did not disclose that petitioner had dishonestly converted or used the property – Allegation of entrustment of dowry articles also levelled against parents of petitioner – Prima faciely offence u/s 406 IPC not made out against petitioners – Held – Proceedings, if continued would amount to abuse of process of Court – Quashed – Petition allowed.

125.

Parmeshwardas Diwan Versus Anju

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  I.S.Tiwana

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Dowry demand

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 305

Complaint case – Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Summons order – Challenged – Accused contended that the said complaint was a counter blast to the petition filed by the husband u/s 13(2) of Hindu Marriage Act – Further, it was contended that no dowry was taken as it was a love marriage – Held – In the circumstances of the case, Court has to decide the contentions raised by accused only after adducing evidence and at this stage of trial, proceedings cannot be quashed – However, Court should exercise is powers u/s 482 of the Code only in rarest of rare cases with great caution – Petition dismissed.

126.

Parmjit Singh Versus Harbans Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 583 (HC)

Offence u/s 406 IPC – Summoning order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings – Alleged misappropriation of dowry articles – Entrustment of different articles to the petitioners specifically alleged – Particulars of articles specifically mentioned in complaint – Cash as dowry was given to the father-in-law of the respondent – However, it cannot be said that dowry articles were entrusted to married or unmarried sisters of husband as parents-in-law of complainant were present at time of marriage whom articles must have been entrusted – As petitioners refused to return the articles, it would be wrongful gain to them and thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant – Held – Since both father and mother of the bridegroom were present at the time of marriage, they must have been accepted various articles of dowry, therefore, they were rightly summoned by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed.

127.

Pawan Kumar and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 506, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 81, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 417 (Supp.)

Offence u/s 406 IPC – Alleged misappropriation of dowry articles – FIR registered against husband and his parents and brothers – Brothers of husband sought quashment of FIR and proceedings – Absence of specific allegations against them – Held – Keeping in view that in the social set up of Joint Hindu Family, on the occasion of marriage brothers of husband play insignificant role regarding acceptance of dowry in the presence of parents – FIR and proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

128.

Parveen Kumari Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 407

Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – FIR registered against husband, brothers of husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law – Alleged misappropriation of dowry articles – Sister-in-law sought quashment of FIR and consequent proceedings – It was contended by sister-in-law that at the time of marriage of his brother she was unmarried and in presence of parents and elder brother, dowry articles could not be entrusted to her – Further, respondent has not able to tell the date on which she was turned out from her matrimonial home and it is also not mentioned in FIR as to on which date she was harassed by the petitioner – Held – In the circumstances of the case, impugned FIR and proceedings against sister of husband quashed – Petition allowed.

129.

Parkash Kaur and orthes Versus Kulwant Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Continuing offence, Entrustment, Quashing, Presumption

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) C.C.Cases 29 (HC)

Complaint for u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Summon order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint and consequent proceedings – No specific allegations about entrustment of dowry article or Istridhan leveled – Also no specific allegation made against petitioners regarding maltreatment of complainant – In view of the fact that in presence of mother of bridegroom, brothers or sisters of later are not usually expected to accept Istridhan on occasion of marriage – Held – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, except one (mother of bridegroom) would certainly amount to abuse of process of Court – However, case of mother of the bridegroom stands on a different footing as rebuttable presumption regarding entrustment of property is available from natural behaviour of human beings – Plea of petitioners that complaint for offence u/s 406 IPC is barred by limitation u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as misappropriation of Istridhan is a continuing offence and would continue till such property is returned to the wife.

130.

Parkash Singh Versus Santosh Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 518, II(1994) CCR 860 (SC), 1994(1) Crimes 929

Complaint for offence u/s 406, 498-A – Summons order – Petition for quashing of complaint and proceedings on the ground that parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably – Offences non-compoundable – Held – In the circumstances of the case, proceedings will not result into conviction of the petitioner and continuance of proceedings would be unnecessary harassment to the petitioner – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

131.

Parveen Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Amaresh Kumar Singh

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Ingredient of offence, Quashing, Refusal to return property

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998 CRI. L. J. 1693, 1998(2) Crimes 414, IV(1998) CCR 392

Offence u/s 406 IPC – FIR registered – Petition for quashing of proceedings – To constitute an offence u/s 405 IPC, it must be shown that accused has dishonestly misappropriate property which was entrusted to him and mere fact that accused refused to return the property entrusted to him does not fulfill the requirement of Sec. 405 IPC – Held – Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of offence u/s 405 IPC as no offence made out u/s 405 IPC – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

132.

Radhey Shyam and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 539 (HC), 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 191

Offence under – FIR – Dissolution of marriage between parties by mutual settlement – Parties had settled all matters regarding the dowry and permanent alimony – It was proper if parties were relieved of all the litigations and they live happily with their new spouses – Held – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

133.

Raj Kumar @ Raji Versus Jangir Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 505

Complaint u/s 406, 498A against husband, his sister and in-laws – Proceedings against the sister, which were brought with the ulterior motive by the complainant were quashed as at time of marriage, the sister was minor and no allegation against her were levelled against her in earlier petition filed for dissolution of marriage.

134.

Raj Kumar Versus Ram Murti

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Presumption of entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 566 

Entrustment – Dowry articles which were left at the house of the husband where the wife had left the house of the husband the presumption drawn would be that the articles which were entrusted to the husband on behalf of wife in the circumstances of the case.

135.

Rajbir Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Agarwal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     2001(1) JCC 220

Complaint – Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Petition for quashing the complaint – Marriage between parties dissolved by mutual consent – No other dispute between them – Held – Proceedings liable to be quashed – Petition allowed.

136.

Raje Ram and others Versus Chander Bhan

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.M.Punchhi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Non return of gifts of engagement, Quashing of summoning order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 418, 420, 34                           Year(s) :  1983

Citation(s) :     1983 C.C.Cases 471 (HC)

Offence u/s 406, 418, 420 r/w 34 IPC – Summon order issued against accused – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the same – Engagement between parties broke off – Gifts given to each other during Chunni ceremony not returned – Held – Such gifts could not be said to be given in the hands of engaged girl or to accused person in implied or expressed trust – Proceedings on such ground could amount to abuse of process of Court – Impugned order of summoning set aside.

137.

Rajeev and others Versus Ram Kishan Jaiswal and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.P.Singh

Allahabad High Court

Subject(s) :  Second complaint – Maintainability, Dismissal / withdrawal of earlier complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 304-B                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(1) Crimes 504, I(1993) CCR 888

Cruelty – Dowry death – Criminal breach of trust – Offence under r/w Sec. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Complaint lodged in Meerut – Summon order issued – A similar application u/s 406, 120-B r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act filed in Delhi before Magistrate earlier also – Subsequently, before cognizance could be taken by Magistrate at Delhi, it was withdrawn – Held – Such complaint at Delhi not a restraint to complaint file in Meerut – Case registered at Delhi about same incident was related to investigation regarding death of bride – No case of returning dowry articles or offence under Dowry Prohibition Act was involved in it – Dismissal or withdrawal of earlier complaint without recording a statement not a bar to subsequent criminal proceedings in different case u/s 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

138.

Rajesh Diwan and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  D.K.Jain

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Dying declaration to Magistrate, Validity of framing of charges, Willful neglect

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 304-B, 406                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(1) C.C.Cases (HC) 191, 1998 III AD S.C. (Cr.) 97, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 31, 1999(1) JCC 5

Dowry death – Deceased was compelled to leave her matrimonial home just three months after her marriage – No attempt made by husband or in laws to bring her back – Deceased staying at her parental home for three years before committing suicide – The charge u/s 304-B and 498-A is framed against the sister-in-law of the deceased and her husband – In dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, the deceased makes allegation of beating by her husband in presence of deceased sister-in-law – Revision against the order of charge – Relevant material placed on record along with dying declaration do not reveal the offence of cruelty towards deceased soon before her death – No offence u/s 304-B made out – But offence u/s 498-A IPC prima facie made out against both the accused – Held – Charge to be framed for offence u/s 498-A only and not for offence under section 304-B – Hence revision petition partly allowed.

139.

Rajesh Kumar Goel and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.B.Bansal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) C.C.Cases 528 (HC)

High Court while invoking its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the FIR as well as proceedings in the case on the grounds that the complainant and the husband had settled all the disputes between them and are living harmoniously – Cases against each other had already been withdrawn as dismissed – Held – FIR and proceedings quashed.

140.

Rajinder Pal Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 308

Dowry articles – FIR for offences u/s 406, 498-A IPC filed against husband, father, mother and minor sister – However, the FIR does not disclose to whom the articles were entrusted out of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint – Held – The husband alone could be liable for the receipt of dowry articles and wife was entitled to recover the articles from the husband by taking proper course of law.

141.

Rajinder Singh Versus Arinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Bali

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Computation of limitation period, Non taking of dowry – Inference

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 34                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(3) RCR (Criminal) 168

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Jalandhar Court had every jurisdiction for entertaining complaint regarding misappropriation of dowry articles as marriage was performed at Jalandhar and husband wife lived together for some months at Delhi where articles of dowry were brought and in-laws refused to return the dowry articles – Held – Jalandhar Court has territorial jurisdiction – Limitation period for the criminal proceeding will start only when the demand for return of articles is refused and not from the date when the wife left the matrimonial home – Plea of accused that no dowry was taken as the per the averment of newspaper was not sustainable as non taking of dowry does not mean that the parents of the girls do not give anything to the daughter and the matter to only be decided after appreciating the evidence by the Trial Court – No ground for to quash proceedings in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition dismissed.

142.

Rajinder Singh Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  D.K.Jain

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998(2) JCC 279

Territorial jurisdiction – Wife filed complaint for offence u/s 406, 498 IPC at Delhi – Marriage had taken place at Patiala and wife was living with her parents at Delhi and the FIR was lodged by wife at Delhi whereas entrustment of dowry articles and cruelty was at Patiala only – No cause of action shown in FIR registered in Delhi to had arisen at Delhi and non mentioning that Istridhan was to be returned at Delhi – Held – The territorial jurisdiction case lies with police at Patiala and was to investigate the commissioning of the offences u/s 406 and 498A IPC – FIR registered at Delhi quashed.

143.

Rajinder Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.S.Sodhi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 283

Offence u/s 498-A and 406 IPC – FIR registered – Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashment of FIR on the ground that parties have entered into compromise and obtained decree for divorce – Held – In the circumstances of the case, impugned FIR quashed – Petition allowed.

144.

Rakesh Kumar Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Offence in same course of transaction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 271

Cruelty – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Registration of case at Ludhiana – Territorial Jurisdiction – Marriage performed at Ludhiana where dowry articles were given – Bride subjected to harassment at her matrimonial house at Ambala for bringing insufficient dowry – Ultimately, Rs. 5100/- were given to husband of bride at Ludhiana as result of such cruelty – Effect of – Held – Misappropriation of Istridhan and cruelty are part of same transaction – Court at Ludhiana has jurisdiction to try the case.

145.

Roshan Lal and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Return of dowry articles for settlement after death of husband

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406, 34                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(2) C.C.Cases 62 (HC)

FIR for offences under – Quashing of – Death of husband – In order to get herself settled independently, wife (complainant) demanded articles of dowry – Petitioner were ready to give dowry articles against receipt – Wife made complaint to police upon which, case was filed against petitioners – Wife received a registered notice to take her dowry articles back against receipt – She took all her dowry articles and a cheque of Rs. 20,000/- and sworn an affidavit to the effect that she does not want to pursue case further – Charge sheet filed in Court – Held – As wife not only had given in writing but also submitted an affidavit that she no more willing to pursue her case further, quashing of FIR and proceedings theron will meet the ends of justice – Order accordingly – Petition allowed.

146.

Rohit Tandon and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.B.Bansal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise to withdraw proceedings, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991 JCC 520

Wife filed complaint against her husband and other in-laws – Husband filed case of divorce against wife – During the pendency of both cases, parties compromised and according to which, husband will pay a amount of Rs. 50,000/- to his wife and in return wife will withdraw all the criminal proceedings pending against him and his relatives – Wife did not withdraw criminal proceeding – Held – In view of such compromise, complaint of wife is unsustainable – Complaint u/s 406 and 498A IPC quashed – Petition allowed.

147.

Rohit Arora and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  N.G.Nandi

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Place for return of Istridhan, Quashing, Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996 JCC 555

Complaint by wife u/s 406 IPC alleging misappropriation of istridhan – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR – Marriage between parties in which articles were entrusted – Parties lived at Calcutta as husband and wife – Later on, marriage broke – Wife came back to her to her parental house at Delhi and stated living there – Held – Husband is not duty bound to return Istridhan at her parental house i.e. at Delhi – Also, Court at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case – FIR quashed.
 

148.

Rohtas and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing, Admission of bride

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 586 

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint – Where complainant itself said in her complaint that she took only gold ornaments to her in-laws house, than it will amount that no dowry articles were given to any of the accused – Held – No offence u/s 406 IPC made out – FIR and proceedings consequent upon are quashed.

149.

Ritu Sareen Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Direction for registration of case, Afterthought allegation of dowry demand

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) C.C.Cases 196 (HC), 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 265

Complaint lodged by wife u/s 498 and 406 against her husband – Police did not make any investigation – Complainant file instant petiton to High Court to give for direction to police to lodge an FIR against accused – During pendency of petition, respondent no. 4-husband filed an application u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act – Wife did not file any written statement – Gave an undertaking – Such application dismissed due to non-fulfillment of undertaking – Held – As allegation of wife of dowry demand of Rs. 10,00000/- prima faciely seem to be an after-thought, no direction can be given to police regarding lodging of FIR for offence u/s 406 and 498 IPC – Petition dismissed.

150.

Ram Chand and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Withdrawal of petition

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) C.C.Cases 462 (HC)

FIR for offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Quashing of – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – No charges framed by Trial Court u/s 406 IPC – Petitioner expresses his desire to withdraw petition reserving his right for taking all the pleas taken in the petition before the Trial Court – Held – Permission granted – Petition dismissed as withdrawn in the circumstances of the case.

151.

Ramesh Chand and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of non compoundable offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 420                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(1) C.C.Cases 313 (HC), 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 626, II(1992) CCR 1299

Proceedings between husband and wife – Parties voluntary reached to compromise – All articles belonging to wife returned back by husband – No dispute – Whether Court in execise of its inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can permit compounding of a non compoundable offence? [Yes] – Held – All proceedings between parties dismissed – Though Sec. 498-A IPC is non-compoundable, even with the consent of the Court, but no bar on the jurisdiction Court for the quashing of  FIR for such offence so as to protect parties from any further trouble.

152.

Ram Kali Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.S.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Second complaint – Maintainability

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 90

Complaint u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Second complaint – In earlier complaint, summons order passed and charges framed – However, complaint was dismissed in default and evidence was not considered – Whether second complaint on same facts is maintainable, particularly when complainant pleaded that she was sick and could not inform her Counsel and such plea was found to be acceptable? [Yes] – Held – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint & proceedings thereupon dismissed.

153.

Rishi Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Jhanji

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Acts of cruelty

Indian Penal code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 498                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 189

Territorial jurisdiction – Complaint for offence u/s 498-A IPC – Complainant was subjected to physical torture at the hands of her husband and other in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry – Marriage performed at Charkhi Dadri (Haryana) and dowry articles were also given at the same place – Subjected to cruelty at her husband”s house at Rajcot (Gujrat) for not bringing sufficient dowry – Held – Court of Charkhi Dadri has jurisdiction to try accused u/s 498-A IPC as complainant was brought here and was left here at her parents house asking her to bring more dowry – Thus, offence can be said to be partly committed at Charkhl Dardri – Cruely – What? – Whether physical or mental harassment to wife by her husband or parents-in law would fall within the term ”cruelty” as contemplated u/s 498-A IPC? [Yes]. 

154.

Ram Pal @ Ram Lal and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Presumption of entrustment, Pre-mature petition

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 506, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1992(2) C.C.Cases 75 (HC), 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 206

Offences under – FIR – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR mainly on ground of vagueness of allegations regarding entrustment of property and maltreatment – Allegations levelled against mother-in-law, who did not accompany marriage party, that she misappropriated istridhan – Presumption can be drawn regarding entrustment of istridhan to mother-in-law after bride reached to her matrimonial house and started living jointly – Version of complainant was duly corroborated by medico legal report which was produced with FIR – At the stage of investigation, it cannot be said for sure as to whether petitioners are living separately from husband of complainant or that they have no motive to ill treat or misappropriate istridhan – Also, without completion of investigation, it cannot be said that the police had no jurisdiction to investigate the case – Moreover, at the most it would amount to an irregularity u/s 462 Cr.P.C. as petitioners have failed to show whether any prejudice had been caused to them due to such investigation – Held – Petition seems to be pre-mature – Dismissed – Jurisdiction to investigate in case of breach of peace – Discussed.

155.

Ramesh Khullar Versus Alka @ Dimple

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Kumaran

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Entrustment, Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 284, 1997(2) C.C.Cases 490 (HC) 

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Complaint against husband, his sister and brother-in-law after three years of marriage – Cruelty for dowry demand alleged at different places on different occasions – Allegations were however vague and general – Entrustment not made out – The accused persons contended that as the parents of husband were present, it could not be supposed that other relations could have accepted the articles and thus proceedings must be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – It seemed improbable that dowry articles would have remained with petitioners even after three years – Cruelty not made out – Complaint and criminal proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

156.

Ramesh Lal Arora Versus Kavita Arora and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.S.Sodhi

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Superdari

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      307, 498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(2) JCC 527

Order of release of car on Superdari passed by the MM, in a case for offence u/s 307, 498-A, 406 IPC, was set aside on the grounds that there was no document on the record to show that the car at any point of time had become the case property for such offences – Matter of instant dispute to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Police Act 1978 as amended uptodate as the case is where the car was taken into possession as unclaimed property u/s 66 of Delhi Police Act and had remained unclaimed property – Submission of respondent No.1 (wife) that vehicle was purchased out of the funds of Istridhan and was claimed by her as Istridhan and upon which the MM released the car to wife of the accused, which however was registered in favour of her husband, was not tenable – Held – Order of Ld. MM quashed.

157.

Richa Sharma @ Happy Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Nijjar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Suppression of material facts, Duty of litigant

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498, 406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  2001

Citation(s) :     2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 438, II(2001) CCR 272

FIR for offences under – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR – Petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as she lived at Shimla with her accused brother but stated that she is living at Chandigarh – Effect of – Held – Petition dismissed without going into merits – When a litigant seeks discretionary relief from the Court, then it is the bounded duty of the litigant to place before the Court all the relevant facts – Petitioner should not concealed from the Court the material facts which may be germane to the decision of controversy – Petition dismissed.

158.

Ranjit Kaur Versus Atam Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.D.Bajaj

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Dowry articles

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) Crimes 527, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 496 (HC)

Misappropriation of ornaments – Complaint filed against bride – Summons order passed – Instant petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint and consequent proceedings – Father-in-law of petitioner alleged that she misappropriated oranments which were given to her by her mother-in-law after her marriage – Held – As such ornaments are dowry of petitioner, allegations levelled by father-in-law against her are totally baseless – Complaint and consequent proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

159.

Ranjit Singh and others Versus Pritam Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Second complaint – Maintainability

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 70, 1992(1) C.C.Cases 7 (HC)

Offence under – Second complaint on same facts was not maintainable where accused had appeared on the date fixed for hearing in pursuance of summon orders issued by the Court but complainant was absent and complaint was dismissed in default due to non-appearance – Held – Only remedy which was available was to file revision against the order dismissing first company.

160. NA at Judis

Rashmi Kumar Versus Mahesh Kumar Bhada

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.Ramaswamy

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Istridhana – What?, Dowry articles – Joint property?, Acts of cruelty, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406, 482, 173                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997 I AD S.C. (Cr.) 37, I(1997) CCR 168 (SC), 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 43

Istridhana – What? – As per sec 2, 3, and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are those properties which were gifted to girl before marriage, at the time of the marriage or at time of giving farewell or thereafter are her Stridhana properties – It is absolute property with which all rights to dispose of at her own pleasure and husband may use them during the time of distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to wife – It does not become the joint property of the wife and her husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof – Prima facie the case of criminal breach of trust, entrustment, Istridhana was made out against the accused where accused-husband and wife used to live together having three children, matrimonial cruelty was committed by husband as he had thrown out the wife from the house – A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the wife and the husband had admitted to take her back and suit was withdrawn but the husband refused to stand by his commitment – Suit filed again alongwith complainant – Held – Where entrustment of Istridhana to husband or his family member is proved, and same is dishonestly misappropriated / converted, it is not required to prove any further special agreement so as to make out the offence of criminal breach of trust – Prima facie, the case was made out against the accused.

161.

Rattan Chand and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Jhanji

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     III(1996) CCR 376, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 792

FIR lodged by wife u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – During the pendency of the proceedings, parties entered into a compromise and wife accepted Rs. 20000/- from husband as permanent alimony and maintenance, according to said compromise – Dissolution of marriage u/s 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act – Effect of – Held – FIR quashed as continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose as the parties have already been entered into compromise – Also, petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance quashed as wife does not have any claim left – Petition allowed.

162.

Renukana Sengupta Versus Debjani Sengupta

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.B.Mukherjee

Calcutta High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996 CRI. L. J. 2839

Criminal breach of trust – Acquittal – Appeal against – It was alleged that daughter-in-law (accused) kept gold ornaments belonging to complainant (mother-in-law) in bank locker after preparing its list – No recovery of incriminating articles as mentioned in list was effected when locker and house of father of accused was searched – Complainant made no effort for getting signature in list compared with admitted signature of accused by Expert – Complainant and her sons had strained relationship with accused – Entrustment not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Held – Acquittal legally sustainable – Appeal dismissed.

163.

Renu and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Acts of cruelty, Continuing offence, Applicability of provision

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991 CRI. L. J. 2049, 1990(1) C.C.Cases 435 (HC)

Cruelty – What? – Whether false allegation against wife in divorce petition that she was not capable of conceiving of child will amount to cruelty? [Yes] – Whether minor sister and brothers of husband can be made liable for offence u/s 406 IPC, particularly when parents of husband are alive? – No, in such case it cannot be presumed that they would be entrusted with dowry article – Whether offence u/s 406 IPC i.e. refusal to return stridhan even after persistent requests is barred by limitation? – No, as such offence is continuing and with every demand for return of stridhan, fresh limitation will starts – Applicability of Sec. 498-A IPC – Whether Sec. 498-A IPC is prospective in nature? [Yes].

164.

Ravinder Krishan Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  P.K.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 431

Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – FIR registered – Demand of Rs. 5 Lakh from bride and she was subject to physical and mental harassment – Petition u/s 482 of the Code for quashment of proceedings on the ground that parties have entered into compromise and settled all their disputes and also dissolved their marriage through mutual consent decree of divorce – Held – In the circumstances of case, proceedings quashed – Petition allowed. 

165.

Ravinder Pal Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.C.Jain

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) C.C.Cases 302 (HC), 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 239, 1994 JCC 115

Complaint u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – FIR registered – It was alleged that wife was harassed by her husband and in-laws for want of dowry – Petition for quashment of FIR and proceedings – Held – Where after going through record and hearing the parties Magistrate found a prima facie case against the accused persons and ordered framing of charge, no ground to quash FIR and proceedings – Petition dismissed.

166.

Raxaben and Others Versus State and Others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.M.Soni

Gujarat High Court

Subject(s) :  Withdrawal from joint account

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992 CRI. L. J. 2946

Offence u/s 406 / 420 IPC – Allegation that the accused (ex-wife of complainant) in the conspiracy with second husband withdrawn some amount from joint account of complainant and accused – But the facts of case suggested that such amount was withdrawn prior to second marriage – Held – Accused cannot be prosecuted for the criminal breach of trust as no offence made out against them.

167.

Saleem Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Shiv Kumar Sharma

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 323                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 95

Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings regarding matrimonial offences – Offences non-compoundable – Compromise reached between parties – Joint application for permission for compoundation – Held – Complaint and criminal proceedings quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.

168.

Sandeep Aggarwal Versus Sudesh Gupta

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of summoning order and proceedings – Not allowed

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 322

Territorial jurisdiction – The Court of Batala had every jurisdiction to try the complaint u/s 498 IPC where the bride had lived after the estrangement with the in laws who were based at Jammu and where they had demanded a Maruti Car from her after that she was compelled to come to Batala to pursuade her parents to give a Maruti Car and it was a matter which comes within the definition of cruelty as prescribed under the Act – The jurisdiction regarding the misappropriation of dowry articles u/s 406 IPC was with the Court where the demand for the return of dowry was made and declined for taking cognizance of the offence – Held – Petition dismissed.

169.

Sandeep Sharma Versus Neha Sharma

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint, Entustment of dowry articles to in-laws – Proof

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) C.C.Cases 506 (HC), 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 72

Misappropriation of dowry articles – There were no grounds for quashing the proceedings in a criminal complaint filed against husband and his parents regarding misappropriation of dowry articles as it was natural that dowry articles at the time of marriage were entrusted to the husband or his parents at the time of marriage and the plea of the petitioners that there was no specific averments in the complaint regarding the specific articles given to which of the accused was not tenable in the circumstances of the case – Petition dismissed.

170.

Sanjay Sanadhya and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.B.Bansal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 34                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(1) C.C.Cases 75 (HC)

Offence u/s 406, 498-A, 34 IPC – Parties amicably settled their dispute out of court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings – In view of the settlement between the parties it is unlikely that the case would result in conviction of petitioners – No purpose would be served by the trial of  petitioners – Moreover quashing of FIR would serve the ends of justice – Held – FIR quashed.

171.

Sanjeev Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Dalveer Bhandari

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994 JCC 640

Petition was filed u/s 498-A and 406 IPC where the compromise was effected between the parties with the plea that they have settled all the disputes and undertake not to prosecute the complaint any longer – Steps taken by the parties for obtaining the decree of divorce – Held – FIR quashed in the instant case.

172.

Sarbjit Singh and others Versus Sarbjit Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Maintainability of complaint, Limitation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) C.C.Cases 51 (HC)

Cruelty, Criminal breach of trust – Sec. 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Petition by respondent u/s 482, 245 and 468 Cr.P.C. – Summon order against petitioners – Discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C. sought by petitioners – Dismissed – Petitioners contended offence u/s 406 IPC barred by time and incident for offence u/s 498 A occurred before commencement of such section – Held – Offence u/s 406 IPC continuing one – Every refusal for demand of Istridhan creates new cause of action – In view of circumstances of the case as the wife left her matrimonial home before Sec. 498-A came into force it could not be invoked retrospectively – Only offence u/s 406 IPC was sustainable – Complaint for other section to be quashed.

173.

Saroj @ Mona Versus Meenakshi

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Kumaran

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     III(1996) CCR 330, 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 683

Criminal breach of trust, Cruelty – Allegations against husband and his brother, mother, father and sisters – Petition by respondents u/s 482 Cr.P.C. also offering to return articles to complainant – Respondents contended that as the sister had not got married they could not be entrusted with dowry articles during the presence of parents at marriage – Even brother of husband resided at different place – Held – Complaint only against brother of husband u/s 406 IPC not made out – However proceedings against sisters could not be quashed due to above mentioned contention of respondents as entrustment was specifically alleged against them in complaint – Offer made in petition not to absolve the accused from their liability u/s 406 IPC – Allegation of bride that persons living at different place came to her house and harassed her for bringing less dowry repelled –  Appeal partly allowed to this extent only.

174.

Sapna Ahuja Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Order of discharge – Not valid

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999 III AD (Cr.) DHC 593, III(1999) CCR 613, 1999(2) C.C.Cases 419 (HC)

Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Alleged matrimonial cruelty since day of marriage – Persistent demand for Rs. 1 lakh and a Maruti Car was made by respondents – Discharge by Magistrate u/s 239 Cr.P.C. – Appeal against by complainant – Discharge by M.M. awarded on three counts i.e. voluntarily leaving of matrimonial house by complainant, strained relation with husband stated as reason for such leaving by her to SHO and complaint was lodged with DCP, ACP and CWC – Held – Statement of victim u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and FIR established a prima facie case against respondents – M.M. erred in awarding discharge leading to miscarriage of justice – Impugned judgement of M.M. to be set aside – Criminal proceedings against respondents u/s 406 / 498-A IPC to be re initiated.

175.

Satinder Kumar Versus Asha Rani

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Sarojnei Saksena

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Malacious prosecution, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     III(1995) CCR 567, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 551

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint against husband, mother-in-law and petitioner / brother-in-law – No prima facie case made out against petitioner – Istridhan entrusted to husband and parent-in-laws – It was alleged that certain dowry articles as wrist watch, sofa, central table etc. were given to petitioner – Held – Such allegations against petitioner seemed to be fabricated as he had nothing to do with such articles of dowry – His malicious implication was aimed at causing harassment to him – Proceedings qua petitioner quashed – Brother and sister of husband do not usually involve in such sort of acts.

176.

Satish Gathwal Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Goel

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Contempt of Court, Breach from undertaking to Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 59

Complaint by wife for offences under – Parties settled their dispute subsequently – Wife to receive Rs. 8 Lacs and get divorce by mutual consent – Wife to seek for quashing of FIR, in return – Wife gave an undertaking to this effect to Court – Wife after getting Rs. 5 Lacs, but retracted from such undertaking – Held – Act of wife within the meaning of Contempt of Court and abuse of process of Court – FIR quashed in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

177.

Satish Kumar Gogia and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) Crimes 431, IV(1994) CCR 2468, 1994(3) C.C.Cases 25 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Criminal conspiracy – Complaint against husband, his parents and his two brothers – Challan presented – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings — Relationship between spouse became sour within four weeks of marriage – Ill treatment and demand of valuable articles of dowry alleged – Brothers however were implicated without any substance – Held – Interference by this Court rare – Return of dowry articles as alleged by petitioners to be considered during trial – No presumption regarding the reliability of allegations could be attached to it – Proceedings and complaint against two brothers to be quashed.

178.

Satnam and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(1) Crimes 401

Miappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – FIR – Parties reached to a mutual compromise – Civil Court passed decree of divorce – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR by accused – Held – FIR and proceedings initiated thereon quashed.

179.

Satya Bir Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, False implication, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 409                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(3) Crimes 307, 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 520

Offences under – FIR – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR – Entrustment of dowry articles to any petitioner not specifically alleged – Also use of such articles for their own benefit not mentioned in FIR – Neither the time at which complainant made demand for returning such articles mentioned in FIR – False implication as a result of reaction to application u/s 9 of HMA probable – Allegation of cruelty leveled without giving any particular account of time, place and manner of beating mentioned – Held – Complaint and abuse of process of Court – FIR and criminal proceedings initiated thereupon liable to be quashed.

180.

Sawindero @ Sawinder Kaur Versus Banso

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Jhanji

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Difference between cheating and misappropriation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(1) Crimes 319 (HC), IV(1995) CCR 623, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 636

Dowry articles allegedly misappropriated – Complaint by wife – Prima faciely facts in complaint and initial evidence established offence u/s 406 IPC – Summon order passed on both counts by Judicial Magistrate – No specific allegation in complaint regarding criminal intention on part of appellant at time when such entrustment was made – Held – Summon order for offence u/s 420 IPC quashed as necessary ingredient of criminal intention as contemplated under above mentioned sec. was not made out – Distinction between Sec. 406 and 420 IPC – For offence of cheating accused uses trick or false representation dishonestly for the purpose of obtaining the property – Such criminal intent may be absent when money or articles were received for offence u/s 406 IPC.

181.

Sham Lal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Applicability of Hindu Succession Act

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 510

Hindu Succession Act – Sec. 25 of the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable as the husband was not held guilty for the murder in the instant case where the husband was acquitted for murdering the wife and FIR filed against husband for not returning the dowry articles – Husband was entitle to retain the dowry articles – Held – Neither an offence u/s 406, 420 IPC was made out nor u/s 25 of the Hindu Succession Act as it is not applicable as husband was not held guilty for the murder in the circumstances of the case.

182.

Shanti Devi Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  N.K.Agarwal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Validity of framing of charges, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 504, 506, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(2) C.C.Cases 439 (HC), 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 382

Criminal breach of trust – Charges under – Proceedings pending before the Magistrate -Petition by accused persons u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings – Dishonest possession of dowry articles by other members of family or their refusal to return them to complainant when demanded, not prima faciely established by evidence on record – Charges against mother, brother and sister-in-law of husband were found to be vague and baseless – Held – Charges only against husband prima faciely made out but ultimately they would be proved by evidence produced by complainant – As regards other family members, criminal proceeding quashed and thus charge u/s 120-B IPC against husband not maintainable – Quashed – Petition partly allowed.

183.

Shashi Sikri and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      403, 406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 324 (Supp.)

Complaint for offence under – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR – Challan filed on basis of complaint in form of letter addressed to SP – Eyewitness regarding such entrustment of articles or money absent – Harassment or criminal breach of trust not made out – No case against complainant lodged by in-laws – Petitioners, sister-in-law & in-laws of complainant – Complainant / an air-hostess and a divorcee – Any money / valuable cannot be expected from her by elderly in-laws – Held – Version of complainant could not be conclusively proved beyond reasonable doubt against petitioners – FIR  quashed – Petition allowed.

184.

Shashikala Deshpande Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.G.Chaudhari

Bombay High Court

Subject(s) :  Family dispute, Out of Court settlement, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) Crimes 62

Criminal breach of trust – Complaint for misappropriation of istridhan – Family dispute – Petition by mother of wife respondent 2 – She applied for search warrant of bank locker – All respondents residing in Australia – Also daughter of petitioner is in Australia – Both husband and wife had Australian citizenship – Matter remanded for police investigation – Writ petition – Parties sought to settle dispute amongst themselves for reason of it being a family dispute – Respondent 2 offered to settle the dispute out of the Court -Accepted by petitioner only as regards istridhan –  Writ petition withdrawn – Held – Criminal complaint dismissed with direction that bank locker to be opened while petitioner and representative nominated by respondent are present.

185.

Sheela Devi and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Remark regarding insufficient dowry

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(3) RCR (Criminal) 643

Territorial jurisdiction – Wife subjected to physical assault by in laws in their house at Ropar – Victim came to her parents at Ludhiana where complaint filed – Held – Police of Ludhiana had no jurisdiction over the case – Also, person making a remark regarding insufficient dowry could not be said to be an accused.

186.

Sher Bahadur Gulati and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Recovery of Istridhan, Legal heir, Quashing of proceedings, Succession of dowry articles

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(1) C.C.Cases 377 (HC), 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 617

Criminal breach of trust – Death of bride – Deceased survived by a son – Held in this case that during the succession of dowry articles father of bride was not a legal heir – The son of deceased bride would succeed to property even if it be presumed that husband is not a legal heir – Litigation by father of bride u/s 406 IPC would not entitle him to recover the Istridhan unless it was for and on behalf of minor son of deceased bride – Complaint and proceedings initiated with oblique motive liable to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 

187.

Sher Jang Singh Versus Virinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.R.Sharma

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Ingredient of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1979

Citation(s) :     1979 CRI. L. J. 493

Criminal breach of trust – In instant case the Court gave an opportunity to complainant to establish the fact that the articles with respect to which offence was alleged were given during marriage – The question before Court was whether act of parents-in-law who had converted istridhan for their own would amount to offence of criminal breach of trust – The court gave answer in positive.

188.

Soma Wati and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Jurisdiction of police, Exemption from appearance, Complaint against relatives of husband, Right of bride to get her Istridhan

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 309, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 168 (Supp.)

Misappropriation – Cruelty – Criminal conspiracy – Complaint against husband and other in laws – Held – Complaint for offence u/s 406 was based on just and reasonable grounds and could not be said to be an abuse of process of law as in every Indian marriage some presents in form of dowry are given to bride to which she is entitled to get back – Close relations of husband in instant case were exempted from personal appearance except for recording their statements – When the offence u/s 498-A IPC was committed beyond the jurisdiction of Police Station, police could neither entertain the complaint nor investigate into the same – FIR for offence u/s 498 IPC quashed for want of jurisdiction.

189.

Sonali Verma Versus Ranbir Sharma and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.S.A.Siddiqui

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Ingredient of offence, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 506                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(1) C.C.Cases 14 (HC)

Misappropriation – Criminal intimidation – Complainant bought a Sim Card for his Cellular phone from accused and misplaced it – He approached petitioner for a fresh Sim Card after reducing the used amount of misplaced card – Held – Allegations made in complaint not sufficient to attract section 406 IPC – Mere transaction of sale would not amount to entrustment within the ambit of Sec 405 IPC – Also averments in complaint not sufficient to attract sec 506 IPC as complainant did not alleged that he was alarmed by the threat given by petitioner – “Threat causing alarm” was essential to attract sec 506 IPC – Proceedings liable to be quashed – Petition allowed.

190.

Som Dutt Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 83

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Complaint against husband and parents-in-law – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Parents of husband living separately for 30 years even before marriage – Fact admitted by complainant – Allegations made in complaint in a vague and absurd manner upon which no person of ordinary prudence would conclude that there was sufficient ground to proceed against them – Held – Proceedings as against parents-in-law quashed.

191.

Swaran Singh and others Versus Jagdish Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Limitation, Continuing offence, Computation of limitation period for misappropriation of Istridhan, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 170 (HC), 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 83

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint by wife against five accused within two months when accused finally refused to part with Istridhan – Petition for quashing complaint and summoning order by Trial Court for offence u/s 406 IPC on ground that complaint is time barred in view of provisions of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. – Wife was turned out of matrimonial house – Allegations regarding entrustment were vague – Entrustment made five years ago – Held – Refusal of accused to part with dowry articles would give fresh cause of action – Such misappropriation was continuous process and thereby, not time barred u/s 468(2) Cr.P.C. – Limitation for filing criminal complaint starts from when accused finally denied to return articles and not from time when she was turned out, as there were always chances that parties could reconciliate – Complaint as against parents of bridegroom not vague as it is a social custom to give them gifts – However, complaint qua sister and brother-in-law of husband quashed as it cannot be said that they accepted dowry articles during the presence of parents of bridegroom – Petition partly allowed.

192.

Sushil Kumar Bhatia Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Bakhshish Kaur

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 21

FIR by wife for offence u/s 498-A, 406, 323 IPC against accused, her husband – Dispute compromised by parties – Both started living as husband and wife – Co-habitation resumed – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR – Held – FIR quashed as case comes within the category of rarest of rare cases.

193.

Surinder Singh Purba Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     I(1992) CCR 968

Complaint u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Vague allegations regarding entrustment of dowry articles made – Case prima faciely not made out – Petitioners disowned his son before incident – Held – No offence u/s 498-A IPC revealed by complainant – FIR liable to be quashed.

194.

Surinderpal Singh and others Versus Gurinderjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 550

Complaint u/s 306, 498-A IPC – Marriage solemnized at Jagraon – Wife lived at Moga with husband – Held – Court at Jagraon had jurisdiction to try the case – Dowry articles returned at Moga – Not believable.

195.

Surinder Kumar Yadav Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Anil Dev Singh

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Acts of cruelty, Continuing offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, 2000(1) C.C.Cases 319 (HC), 2000(1) JCC 245

Territorial jurisdiction – Wife was subjected to cruelty at Lucknow – She started residing at Delhi where her marriage was solemnized and dowry articles were entrusted to accused – Held – Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the case u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Depriving wife of her dowry article would amount to cruelty – Court at place of residence of wife could try such cases – Cruelty is continuous process that would still persist at Delhi – Petitioners under obligation to return Istridhan at Delhi – Petition to quash the complaint dismissed.

196.

Surinder Kuamar Arora and others Versus Suman Arora

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Continuing offence, Non mention of offence in earlier complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 245

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint by wife against husband and his mother – Istridhan not stated in an earlier complaint made by her u/s 498-A IPC when she was turned out from in-laws house – Held – Such non-mentioning was immaterial as at time when she was turned out, she could not be expected with knowledge that her Istridhan would not be returned by accused pesons – Court at Barnala would have jurisdiction over the case where dowry articles were entrusted to husband and his relations, even though matrimonial house was at Meerut – Limitation – No limitation, as offence is of continuous nature.

197.

Surinder Kaur Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.C.Malte

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Offence in same course of transaction, Acts of cruelty, Place for return of Istridhan

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) C.C.Cases 355 (HC)

Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by husband – Marriage at Amritsar – Husband contracted second marriage – Deserted her – Parents of husband resided at Malerkotla – Demand for Istridhan made by wife was refused by petitioner – Petitioner pleaded that Court at Amritsar did not have jurisdiction try offence u/s 498-A IPC – Held – It is obligation of accused to give Istridhan to wife where she required them to be returned and at place of her present residence – Thus, offence u/s 406 IPC could be tried at Amritsar – Events closely intricated that offences under both Sections form series of act of same transaction – Refusal to return Istridhan also falls u/s 498-A IPC – Court at Amritsar had jurisdiction to try the case in view of provisions u/s 220(1) Cr.P.C.

198.

Surinder Kaur Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Beneficiary of dowry

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 112, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 398 (HC)

Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Complaint by wife who had deserted her husband – Charges made against husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to qaushed complaint and proceedings – Common perception that dowry articles are given to bridegroom or his parents – No particular averments against petitioners – Sisters of husband had been implicated with oblique motive – Held – Proceedings as regards sisters of husband liable to be quashed as their continuance would amount to abuse of process of Court.

199.

Surinder Kaur @ Namrata Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.C.Malte

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Offence in same course of transaction

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 116

Complainant / wife was subjected to cruelty at Malerkotla – FIR u/s 406, 498-A IPC recorded at Amritsar at place of residence of wife – Held – As both offences are outcome of same transactions and connected to one another with series of acts, Court at Amritsar had jurisdiction to try the case.

200.

Suresh Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay in FIR fatal, Vague allegations, Territorial jurisdiction, Date of entrustment not mentioned, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1989

Citation(s) :     1989 C.C.Cases 461 (HC), 1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 73, 1993(3) RCR (Criminal) 404 

Wife alleged that she was subjected to maltreatment and physical and mental torture for wants of dowry on several occasions – FIR after 2½ years when she left her in-laws house – Specific allegations of entrustment or details of ornaments and clothes not mentioned in FIR – Date on which Rs. 25,000/- was paid not stated – Held – Allegations levelled with intention to harass her husband and in-laws – FIR liable to be quashed – Jurisdiction – Marriage in Haryana – Alleged dowry demand and misbehaviour at Delhi – No jurisdiction of Haryana Court to try case.

201.

State Versus Khajan Singh and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Arun Madan

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Probation, Power of High Court in appeal against acquittal

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      376, 406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     II(1995) CCR 272

Offence u/s 376, 406 and 498-A IPC alleged against 3 persons / Govt. servants – All acquitted for offence u/s 376, 406 IPC – However, convicted u/s 498-A IPC – Reasons assigned by Trial Court, tenable – Held – Appeal against acquittal and for enhancement of sentence dismissed – Appeal against conviction partly allowed by extending benefit of sec 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to all 3 accused – Acquittal not lightly interfered unless there were sufficient circumstances to take contrary view and thus reverse the findings.

202.

Surender Kumar Jassal Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Mahajan

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997 JCC 76

FIR for offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Allegations against father-in-law, husband and sister-in-law – Petition for quashing FIR – In complaint, specific allegations of harassment, cruelty, dowry demand and snatching of jewellery and dowry articles of complainant levelled against all petitioners except husband – Husband did not take back wife to matrimonial house even though he promised – Charges in FIR not made out against husband – Held – FIR quashed as regards husband alone as no torture alleged by wife against him – Petition by father-in-law and sister-in-law dismissed.

203.

Surat Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  T.H.B.Chalapathi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Cognizance barred but not investigation, Limitation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 555

Misappropriation – Cruelty – FIR – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR sought to be quashed on ground that it was time barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Held – On such ground FIR not liable to be quashed – Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. bars Court to take cognizance after period of limitation had expired – Investigation not barred by such section. 

204.

Sunita Rani Versus Ranjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.K.Srivastava

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 178

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Cruelty – Complaint against husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition by sister and her husband to quash the complaint on ground that complaint did not state as to which specific dowry article was entrusted to each accused and that as both lived separately from family of husband of respondent wife, thus had no opportunity to get dowry articles from parents of husband – Held – Such contentions no ground to quash the proceedings – Petitioners present during marriage and at matrimonial house when dowry demand was made – Petitioner dismissed.

205.

Sunita @ Pinky Versus Sunita

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Anand

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay in filing complaint, Limitation, Vague allegations, Quashing of complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 447

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Wife made complaint against parents-in-law – Complaint after more than 3 years of cruelty – Barred by limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. – Allegation of vague nature – Summon order issued – Evidence recorded – Case unlikely to take much time for decision – Held – Complaint quashed in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – If no case is made out, early decision could be a ground to quash proceedings in exercised of inherent powers.

206.

Sultan Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.K.Srivastava

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Death of complainant, FIR as dying declaration

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 290

Cruelty – Misappropriation – Wife left her marital house – Came at Jhajjar at house of her parents – FIR by wife at Jhajjar – Wife died – Whether FIR liable to be quashed – Held – Trial not frustrated due to death of complainant as FIR bearing signature of complainant is admissible in evidence u/s 32 of Evidence Act – Persons named in FIR as witnesses and accused person to be examined during trial – Also, Jhajjar Court would had jurisdiction over the case – Jurisdiction – To be inferred in light of charges levelled in FIR – If offence was partly committed within jurisdiction of Court were the case is pending, it would be within competent jurisdiction of such Court to deal the case and proceed with trial.

207.

Sulochna Devi Versus Sunita Rani

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.L.Singhal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of summoning order, Alternate remedy, Power of High Court to quash complaint – Scope

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 777, I(1997) CCR 340

Cruelty – Misappropriation – Complaint by wife – Magistrate issued summon order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by accused on ground that there was no disclosure of articles of dowry that were entrusted to accused, in complaint – Also, that complaint did not state the time and date on which bride was maltreated – Held – Principle of law – If Magistrate issued summon order on satisfaction with preliminary evidence given by complainant to support its allegation that, a prima facie case was made out, High Court would not quash the complaint and summons in exercise of inherent powers – Alternative remedy – Accused to request Magistrate u/s 245 Cr.P.C. to review summon order and quash the same if there was no evidence upon which charges could be framed – If Magistrate did not review order, accused could again request after evidence had been recorded and show that no evidence to frame charge was on record. 

208.

Sulabha Pradip Vasa Versus Pradip

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Parkar

Bombay High Court

Subject(s) :  Binding nature of finding of Civil Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 114                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 60

Offence u/s 406, 114 IPC – Wife complained of misappropriation of her ornaments by husband – Civil proceedings also undergoing – Acquittal to husband awarded by Criminal Court – Civil Court directed husband to return the ornaments as it found that ornaments was with husband – Whether findings of Civil Court would have any binding on Criminal Court to convict the accused ? – No.

209.

Sukhbir Jain and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.C.Jain

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Ingredient of offence, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) C.C.Cases 609 (HC), 1993 JCC 91

Criminal breach of trust – Ingredient – Clear and specific allegation of entrustment of some property to accused by complainant – Dishonest misappropriation thereof by accused or conversion thereof by accused to his own use – Refusal on part of accused to return the same on demand of complainant – General or vague allegations of entrustment to all accused at time of marriage not by itself make a prima facie cognizable offence u/s 406 IPC – Held – As such ingredients were lacking in case against petitioners, no prima facie case u/s 406 IPC made out from facts alleged in complaint.

210.

Suresh Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.L.Koul

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Power of Magistrate to direct police to register case, Quashing of FIR, Enquiry report – Value of

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 137

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Complaint before Magistrate – Complaint sent to police for registering the case and for enquiry – FIR lodged accordingly – Investigation reports submitted to Magistrate – Held – FIR liable to be quashed on ground that Magistrate was not empowered to give directions to police to register the case – He could only asked for enquiry by sending complaint to police so as to enable him to apply his mind regarding the veracity of complaint – Enquiry repot received by Magistrate not final – Discharge of accused or issue of process or action u/s 190 Cr.P.C. could be taken by Magistrate by applying his mind to the complaint – Enquiry report not to be dealt as police challan by Magistrate.

211.

Sudhir Kumar Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Jhanji

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Entrustment, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 265

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Cruelty – FIR by wife – Allegations against relatives of husband – Dowry articles given to them mentioned in FIR – FIR sought to be quashed on ground that allegation in FIR do not make out entrustment of specific articles to particular accused – Held – No ground to quash FIR as there had been clear allegation of taking property and refusal to return the same by accused, in FIR.

212.

Sudhir Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR – When? – Principles, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(3) RCR (Criminal) 588, III(1992) CCR 2372

Misappropriation – Cruelty – Complaint by wife against husband and his relatives after 3 ½ years of marriage – FIR – Not probable that such articles would had remained with any other person except husband after such period – Held – FIR quashed – When FIR to be quashed – Principle stated.

213.

Sudesh Kumari Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.Rai

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     III(1999) CCR 340

Misappropriation – Cruelty – FIR – Compromise – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Complainant stated that she did not want to pursue criminal proceedings against petitioners – Also, that she did not have any objection if FIR quashed – Held – In viw of such facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court – FIR quashed.

214.

Sudhish Chandra Anand Versus Rekha Anand

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.K.Chawla

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Continuing offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(2) C.C.Cases 279 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Petition for discharge and quashing of proceedings – Petitioner / accused pleaded that complaint for offence u/s 406 IPC ought to be made within 3 years of judicial separation – Held – Demand of dowry articles not barred by limitation.

215.

Sudarshan Kumar and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Abuse of process of Court, Complaint against relatives of husband, Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 624 (Supp.)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Allegation that complainant was driven away from house by in-laws after death of her husband – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – Fact that all members of family had been implicated would not be sufficient to inferred that such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court – Jurisdiction – Where dowry articles were entrusted at a particular place and they were demanded back there, police of such place could have jurisdiction to investigate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and dispute could not be argued as of civil nature.

216.

Subhash Kumar Sethi Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.L.Bahri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Abetment, Liability of mediator of marriage

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988 C.C.Cases 569 (HC)

Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC r/w 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act – FIR – Charges framed – FIR, chages and proceedings sought to be quashed – Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner was mediator of marriage between parties – Allegation that petitioner asked for more dowry – However, from nature of evidence, there is no question of any suspicion arising in this aspect – Assertion in evidence does not indicate that petitioner abetted husband to demand dowry articles – Held – Chages qua petitioner quashed – Petition allowed.

217.

Subhash Chander Dhawan and others Versus Jyoti

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 329 

Cruelty – Misappropriation of ”Istridhan” – Complaint against husband and relatives – Allegations of cruelty not specific – Vague – No details of any specific incident given – Spouse lived together for 4 months – Thus, they must had got back dowry articles – Only husband liable for misappropriation – Held – Husband only liable to be proceeded for offences u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Complaint against relatives quashed.

218.

State Versus Radhakrishnan and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.Bakthavatsalu

Madras High Court

Subject(s) :  Suppression of earlier complaint, Contradictions, Improper investigation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(2) Crimes 483

Offence under r/w Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations against husband and his parents – Acquittal – Appeal – Complainant had complained even before lodging of FIR – Such earlier complaint suppressed by prosecution – Defence contended that complainant had exaggerated minor incidents – FIR and testimony of complainant infirm regarding jewels which were allegedly removed by accused from person of complainant – No effort made by IO to recover articles that were allegedly misappropriated by accused – Even nothing to show that such jewels and other articles were given on demand of accused – Held – Subsequent complainant not to be deemed as FIR for reason of Sec. 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. – Non production of earlier complaint would probalise defence contention – Findings of Trial Court not perverse.

219.

Surinder Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Ingredient of offence, Remand of case for reframing charge

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) Crimes 40

Misappropriation of Istridhan – Cruelty – FIR against husband, his parents, brother and sisters – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Ex-parte divorce decree u/s 13 HMA awarded – Brother and sisters of husband not implicated in that divorce petition – Allegations against them regarding offence u/s 406 IPC found to be vague – Held – FIR as against brother and sister liable to be quashed – Applicability of Sec. 498-A – Ingredients – For attracting said provision, it is the act of the accused after being lawfully married with the complainant – Charge should specify date, time and place at which husband committed such offence – Case remanded for reframing of charge against husband as requirements of Sec. 498-A IPC are not satisfied due to absence of particulars.

220.

V. Chandrasekaran Versus Vashntha and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.C.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Non mention of misappropriation of dowry articles in civil proceedings

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 224

Offence under r/w Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Alleged misappropriation of dowry articles by husband – Complaint by wife regarding non-return of articles on demand – Litigation proceedings already pending with husband for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C., as well as for restitution of conjugal rights – Wife did not mention misappropriation of dowry articles in such proceedings – Complaint held to be absurd – Quashed.

221.

V. P. Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.K.Jhanji

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Ingredient of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 261

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Territorial jurisdiction – Marriage performed at Lucknow where dowry articles were handed over – Couple living in Delhi – Wife receiving harassment by dowry demands and subsequent beatings – Wife came to live with her parents at Chandi Mandir – Husband following her there also, beating her and making dowry demands there also – Physical and mental harassment constituting cruelty – Lodging of FIR done at Chandigarh – Held – FIR cannot be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on ground of territorial jurisdiction – Offence committed partly at the place of wife”s residence – Ingredients of offence u/s 498-A IPC – Discussed.

222.

Tara Chand Garg Versus Geetu Aggarwal

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.K.Srivastava

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint by father of bride holding power of attorney, Aggrieved person, Rere painting of bride – Not dowry article

Indian Penal Code 

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 138

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Father of the bride holding general power of attorney – Lodging complaint u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Whether father can file complaint as attorney as per Sec. 198-A Cr.P.C.? (Yes) – A piece of rare painting belonging to bride – Cannot be deemed to be a part of dowry – Proceedings quashed.

223.

Tejpal Bajaj and others Versus Neeru and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  N.K.Kapoor

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay tactics, Acts of cruelty

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 202 (HC)

Quashing of procedings – Petitioner found to be made with an intention to delay trial – Complaint regarding entrustment of dowry articles and administration of poison done at different places – However, within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court – Trial Court under duty to avoid delay by recording the evidence in an expeditions manner, and take decision on the complaint – Held – Cruelty u/s 498-A / 120-B IPC saved by Sec. 4 of Repealing and Amending Act – Petition dismissed.

224.

Thampi Chettiar Arjunan Chettiar Versus State of and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.Padmanabhan

Kerala High Court

Subject(s) :  Claim of property by husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1985

Citation(s) :     1985(2) Crimes 386

Criminal breach of trust – Wife complaining against husband – Acquittal – Sec.452 Cr.P.C. – Gold ornaments and household utensils ordered to be given to wife by the Trial Court – Confirmed by ASJ – Revision by husband claiming property – Wife adjudged to be the best person to own these articles – Appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances done – Held – No ground to interfere with the order of Courts below – Revision dismissed.

225.

Tilak Raj Sood Versus Sudesh Sood

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Offence in same course of transaction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 407

Dowry case – Complaint – Cruelty – Dowry articles misappropriated – Marriage at Patiala – Dowry articles given at Patiala – After marriage parties were staying at Mohali where wife was harassed and maltreated – Summoning order by Trial Court at Patiala – Challenged – It was contended that offences u/s 406 and 498-A IPC are separate and independent of each other and Trial Magistrate have no jurisdiction to try out both the offences together – Held – Both offences being closely interlinked with each other are part of the same transaction – Trial Court at Patiala has jurisdiction to try the case – Petition dismissed.

226.

Tej Kaur and others Versus Amarjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.S.Nehra

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Malacious prosecution, Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations, Abetment for bigamy, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 494, 109                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     I(1993) CCR 517, 1993(1) C.C.Cases 306 (HC), I(1993) CCR 632, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 299, 1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 310

Abetment of offence of bigamy – Summoning order – Challenged – Absence of any allegation regarding attending the marriage by petitioners – Trial Court not finding alleged second marriage as performed – Marriage ceremony”s details not asserted – Allegations against the Granthi of performing the second marriage not found with any base – Mere statement of petitioner to the father of the respondent regarding second marriage of his son being performed does not indicate abetment – Pleas by the petitioner not replied by the respondent – Held – Proceedings quashed – Dowry articles – Misappropriation – Given to husband”s relatives – Marriage 16 years old – Wife living at in-laws house for 6 years – In betwen, articles must had been given back to her – Malicious intent by wife – Not clearly and specifically alleged that as to whom, which dowry articles was given – No case of misappropriation made out against relations of husband – Further, as brother of husband was five years old at the time of marriage, allegations against him regarding misappropriation of dowry articles amount to be malacious – Proceedings quashed.

227.

Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay in FIR fatal, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 495, 498-A, 506, 34                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     III(1995) CCR 247

Criminal breach of trust – Bigamy – Cruelty – Criminal intimidation – Common intention – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings – After marriage, wife living with in-laws for one month – Husband going abroad – Marrying again – Wife lodging a police complaint – Leaving her matrimonial home in 1988, alongwith her articles given from the in-laws side – After three years, after being unable to take action against husband for bigamy, lodging an FIR involving her in-laws – Abuse of the process of Court – Held – FIR and proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

228.

Usha Rani Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of proceedings, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420, 498-A, 498                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     IV(1995) CCR 595, 1995(1) RCR (Criminal) 690

Cruelty – Criminal intention – Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Quashment proceedings sought u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Sec. 9, 13 Hindu Marriage Act – Restitution of conjugal rights – Divorce – Husband / petitioner seeking divorce u/s 13 HMA – Wife / respondent, leaving home – Specifically alleging cruelty and entrustment of dowry articles against husband and in-laws with vague references against two brothers of the petitioner in FIR – Held – Proceedings against brothers quashed.

229.

Ushabai Versus Dhanajay and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.D.Shukla

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     IV(1994) CCR 2600

Criminal breach of trust – Sec. 181(4) Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts – Marriage performed at Badnagar, and articles and gifts given in marriage placed at Bhopal – Held – Both the Courts at Badnagar and Bhopal have the jurisdiction to try this case.

230.

Vandana Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  I.S.Tiwana

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 498

Cruelly – Criminal breach of trust – Complaint – FIR registered – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint – Held – Complaint discloses commission of offence complained therein – Court is not required to find out whether allegations are true or not – It is for the Trial Court after giving opportunity to both sides after aducing the evidence – High court required to exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with caution – Petition dismissed.

231.

Uma Shanti and others Versus Ravi Kanta

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 337, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 495 (HC)

Misappropriation of Stridhan – Wife complaining against husband – Sec.125 Cr.P.C. and Guardian & Wards Act not coming to the rescue of wife – Proceedings u/s 406 IPC pending for about 5 years – Complainant failed to prove misappropriation of her Stridhan – Amounts to harassment of petitioners and abuse of the process of Court – Allegations absurd – No purpose would be served to continue proceedings against the accused – Held – Proceedings quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition allowed.

232.

Upmajit Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Allegations at belated stage, Malacious prosecution

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 153 (HC)

Criminal breach of trust – Cruelty – Alleged misappropriation of dowry articles and harassment – Complaint – Quashment of proceedings sought – Examination of allegations made in the complaint for establishing the crime is essential – Related circumstances also to be examined – Allegations made at a belated stage, were found to be fabricated – Complainant found to have left her matrimonial home after passing of a divorce decree and thereafter filed complaint in question – If the charge found to be false or made with malicious intent, interference is needed to quash proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – Proceedings and complaint quashed – Petition allowed.

233.

Vidya Devi Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Kumaran

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Dowry articles, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 420                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 431

Misappropriation of dowry articles – FIR lodged – Petition against – Held – No specific entrustment pleaded – Marriage sustained for one year only, followed by divorce – Two of the petitioners living separately – Under the circumstances, no chances of the complainant allowing the petitioners to retain the dowry articles for so long period – FIR quashed.

234.

Vijau Kumar and others Versus Sunita and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Maithli Sharan

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000 CRI. L. J. 4116

Criminal breach of trust – Respondent receiving Stridhan at the time of marriage, solemnized  at place ”S” – Stridhan entrusted at the place ”Z” – Misappropriation of the said property done at the place ”Z” – In the absence of dishonest misappropriation, mere entrustment does not constitute an offence – Trial jurisdiction – Place of Trial – ”Z” is the place where the alleged misappropriation was done – Hence, Court at place ”Z” and not at place ”S” has jurisdiction to try out the case.

235.

Vikram Tikoo Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.K.Mehra

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Settlement in matrimonial offences – Effect, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997 JCC 417

Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – FIR lodged by wife – Petition for quashment of FIR – Marriage dissolved in the meantime by mutual consent, with the condition that there would not be any claim of any type – Amicable settlement – Prayer by wife for the withdrawal of FIR – Held – Facts and circumstances of the case allowing for withdrawal of the FIR – FIR quashed.

236.

Vijay Narain Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Vague allegations, Discharge of trust, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      494, 498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 630, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 427 (HC)

Misappropriation of dowry articles – Cruelty – Bigamy – Wife lodging FIR u/s 498-A IPC against husband and in-laws for beating  – Summons to the accused – Challenged – Medical evidence not supporting the alleged beating – Allegations found to be vague against all accused, except husband – Wife herself used dowry articles given to her at time of marriage as gives etc., after marriage – Wife leaving matrimonial home – Dowry articles retained – Held, no offence u/s 406 IPC made out against relatives of husband – As wife had herself used the dowry articles after marriage, trust created by her parents stood discharged, the moment the dowry articles  were handed over to wife for her use – Thus, FIR qua all accused except the husband quashed.

237.

Vikas Gupta Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.L.Gupta

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 363                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(1) C.C.Cases 269 (HC), 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 365

Misappropriation of dowry Articles – Cruelty – Kidnapping – Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.- FIR by wife against husband – Parties mutually settled the dispute by reaching to compromise – Compromise reached between parties without any coercion or undue presser – Joint petition u/s 13-B Hindu Marriage Act  – Allowed – It would be deemed that proceedings pending before Matrimonial Court had been dropped – Held – FIR and proceedings there upon would also be deemed to be dropped in view of fact that parties had settled the dispute by mutual compromise – Divorce petition accepted and decreed – Petition for grant of anticipatory bail had become infructuous as FIR has been quashed.

238.

Vinod Kumar Gahir Versus Pawan Kumari

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of summoning order, Expenditure incurred in marriage

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      420, 406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) C.C.Cases 198 (HC)

Complaint for offences under – Summon order – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint on ground that it has been instituted only to harass and humiliate and allegations made in complaint could not be considered sufficient prima facie to constituted any offence – Earlier, the impugned order of summoning was challenged in revision before Addl. SJ which was dismissed after hearing the parties and by a speaking order – Main contention on part of petitioner has been that the allegations made were vague and a large number of relatives have been roped – However, complainant had attached an annexure which has taken shape of evidence when complainant herself appeared as a witness on ought – A-4 had allegedly admitted some documents – A-1 and 2 agreed to discharge responsibility of entrustment before Panchayat – Court is not to see as to how and when parents of complainant had incurred alleged expenditure on marriage – Held – Stage is not fit to exercise powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the impugned order – Petition dismissed. 

239.

Virsa Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Bedi

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Dismissal of complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 506, 323                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 451 (HC)

Complaint under – Petition for quashment of complaint – Complainant making allegations against husband and the petitioners in a vague manner – List of articles also vague – Not connecting to the case as mentioned in the complaint – Held – When relations between the husband and wife become strained, the tendency is to rope in all the family members of the husband”s side – FIR and proceedings in connection with petitioners 2 to 4 dismissed – Petition in connection with petitioner 1 (father-in-law of complainant) dismissed – Petition partly allowed.

240.

Vishwa Mitter and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Dowry articles, Limitation, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(1) RCR (Criminal) 34

Wife filed complaint regarding non returning of dowry articles against husband, his married sister and her husband – In the year 1985 wife ousted from her matrimonial home – In the and of year 1987, relatives making efforts to put her back in the house – Not succeeded – Limitation for suit of return of dowry articles -Petition against – Proceedings quashed qua sister and husband as it is impossible to entrust dowry articles to them. 

241.

Gopal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.Natarajan

Madras High Court

Subject(s) :  Reduction in sentence, Divorce by mutual consent, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999 CRI. L. J. 3939

Offence under – Wife filed complaint – Trial of husband – Conviction r/w Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – RI and fine awarded as sentence – Later on, husband and wife resolved their differences amicably – Divorce by mutual consent as per compromise between them – Effect of – Held – Sentence of husband reduced to period already undergone so as to meets ends of the justice.

242.

Gopal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.Natarajan

Madras High Court

Subject(s) :  Reduction in sentence, Divorce by mutual consent, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     IV(2000) CCR 267

Offence under – Wife filed complaint – Trial of husband – Conviction r/w Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – RI and fine awarded as sentence – Later on, husband and wife resolved their differences amicably – Divorce by mutual consent as per compromise between them – Effect of – Held – Sentence of husband reduced to period already undergone so as to meets ends of the justice.

243.

Hasmukh Trivedi Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.L.Gupta

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Limitation, Computation of limitation period for offence u/s 406

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991 JCC 581, I(1992) CCR 226, 1992(2) C.C.Cases 134 (HC)

Petition filed for quashing the proceedings u/s 406 IPC against the petitioner where the wife had filed complaint for misappropriation of Istridhan against the petitioner and the marriage took place in 1979 and the complaint was filed in 1987 – Held – Complaint was maintainable as the limitation were filing the complaint starts from the date of demand of Istridhan and not from date of marriage – Petition dismissed.

244.

Harpal Singh Versus Ravinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband, Juvenile, Overt act not assigned

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) C.C.Cases 489 (HC)

Petition filed for quashing the proceedings against petitioner- 3 where she was alleged to have misappropriated with dowry articles and committed the cruelty -Grounds – She was minor at time of marriage of petitioner-1 and the complainant and there was no evidence on the record to show that how the dowry articles could be entrusted when same can be entrusted and mother-in-law of the complainant – There were no specific allegations against minor sister-in-law of the complainant alongwith the any incident and no role was attributed to her – Held – No case made out against the petitioner-3 – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

245.

Hansraj Choudhary Versus Sarita

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.P.Singh

Allahabad High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     II(1992) CCR 1996 

Cruelty and misappropriation of Istridhan – Territorial jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of the Courts where complaint was filed by wife – Magistrate after taking cognizance, issued process u/s 202 Cr.P.C. – Revision – As marriage had taken place in Jhansi and articles were handed over to the applicant in Jhansi, Court of Jhansi had every jurisdiction to entertain complaint u/s 406 IPC – However it was not open to wife filing complaint u/s 498-A IPC at place A whereas the acts of cruelty against her were committed at place B and thus CJM at Jhansi had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the case u/s 498-A IPC – Held – Summoning order set aside as far as offence u/s 498-A IPC is concerned however, complaint in question is to be tried by the CJM Jhansi as it relates to the offence u/s 406 IPC – Application disposed of accordingly.

246.

Gunwant Raj and others Versus Madhu Sharma

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 176 (Supp.)

Petition filed u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings u/s 406 / 498-A IPC on the grounds – There were no specific allegations against each of the accused persons or for the demand of dowry alongwith the acts of cruelty towards the wife -The entrustment of dowry articles or refusal on their part for the return of the specific dowry articles entrusted to them – Held – No case made out against the accused persons u/s 406 / 498-A IPC except the husband – Complaint and proceedings against the petitioners except the husband were quashed in the circumstances of the case.

247.

Gurjant Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Second complaint – Maintainability, Second complaint – Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 403                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 60

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Wife filed application against father-in-law alleging that he misappropriated dowry articles – Police conducted enquiry – However, case was not registered – Wife filed another application wherein husband and other family members were implicated – On such application, case was registered for offences u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Whether proper? [No] – Held – Second application would amount to statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings quashed qua all accused except father-in-law.

248.

Harpal Singh Verus Ravinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband, Juvenile

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 106

Petition filed for quashing the proceedings against petitioner-3 where she was alleged to have misappropriated with dowry articles and committed the cruelty -Grounds – She was minor at time of marriage of petitioner-1 and the complainant and there was no evidence on the record to show that how the dowry articles could be entrusted when same can be entrusted and mother-in-law of the complainant – There were no specific allegations against minor sister-in-law of the complainant alongwith the any incident and no role was attributed to her – Held – No case made out against the petitioner-3 – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

249.

Gurdip Singh Versus Gurjit Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint, Vague allegations

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) C.C.Cases 551 (HC)

Petitioner filed an petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint where complainant had suspected the fidelity of the petitioner and had filed complaint where there were no specific allegations regarding dowry articles or entrustment for the same – Held – Complaint quashed – Petition allowed. 

250.

Harish Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Harbans Singh Rai

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Appreciation of evidence – Acquittal

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      304-B, 406, 498-A, 201                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) Crimes 377

Appellants filed an appeal where the deceased who had been married to appellant in 1985 died in September 1987 – There was no evidence on the record to show that deceased had died in the circumstances otherwise than normal – There were no allegations for demand of dowry as per testimony of the witness – No evidence to show that deceased was being harassed due to demand of dowry – Held – Impugned order of the conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted.

251.

Tilam Raj Sood Versus Sudesh Sood

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(2) C.C.Cases 179 (HC)

Matrimonial dispute – Territorial jurisdiction – At the place of marriage complaint  lodged – In the complaint specific allegation for entrustment of dowry articles and demand of more dowry by husband of complainant – Held – Place where marriage is performed, complaint can be lodged – Court where the marriage of complainant-wife was performed is invested with the territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 

252.

Om Pal Singh and others Versus Sunita and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) C.C.Cases 331 (HC)

Matrimonial offence – Territorial jurisdiction – Petition filed u/s 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Plea that the offence u/s 498-A IPC  not committed in Karnal, Haryana and the husband belonged to and had lived in  Saharanpur U.P. and the Court at Karnal had no jurisdiction was not tenable – Several persons other than the husband had been falsely implicated – Held – Petition partly allowed, FIR quashed as far as Shivcharan, Dharmpal the two brothers of the husband and Sona Devi and Shiv Kumar who were distant relative and residents of District Saharanpur, are concerned.

253.

Tarun Kumar and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.K.Srivastava

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Compromise, Cordial relation between spouse

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 189

Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Husband and wife started living together after compromise – Held – Quashing of FIR is allowed – Petition allowed.

254.

Surjit Singh and others Versus Jaswant Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Matrimonial discord

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1990

Citation(s) :     1990(1) C.C.Cases 526 (HC)

Matrimonial Dispute – Misappropriation of Stridhan – No evidence of entrustment of dowry articles to petitioner in allegations made – Scope of general allegation against the accused – Discussed and explained.

255.

Nanak Chand and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Gifts to relations on occasion of marriage ceremonies – Istridhan?, Manner of cruelty not explained, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 109                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 363, 1992(2) C.C.Cases 38 (HC)

Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR for offence u/s 406, 109, 498-A – Gifts to relations and particulars wanting for offence of maltreatment – The allegations contained in the FIR qua the giving of gifts by way of hard cash and clothes to the relation of the husband on the occasion of chunni ceremony, marriage and other ceremonies are no consequence because those gifts are given personally to the relations for their use and not entrusted to them for the use of the bride or the complainant – The allegations regarding cruelty in complaint wherein complainant had simply averred that about 1 ½ months ago she was turn out without any articles by the accused from her matrimonial life after cruel treatment – She had failed to explained the manner of such cruel treatment what to say of disclosing as to whether she was physically maltreated or mentally tortured – Thus, under these circumstances none of the accused petitioners would be liable for the offence u/s 498-A IPC even her entire version as contained in the FIR is believed – Petitioner partly allowed.

256.

Jangir Singh and others Versus Harpal Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.S.Agarwal

P & H high Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      302, 498-A, 406, 420, 506                           Year(s) :  1995

Citation(s) :     1995(2) RCR (Criminal) 428

Offences under – Complaint – Solemnization of marriage and handing over of marriage articles at two different places viz. Ludhiana and Sirsa respectively – Mental torture of bride was alleged – Bride came to her parents in Sirsa District where the torture continued – Held – Jurisdiction of Criminal Court at Sirsa to try the offence.

257.

Jasbir Kaur and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  A.P.Chowdhri

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Abuse of process of Court, Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1988

Citation(s) :     1988-91 C.C.Cases 353 (Supp.)

Charge u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Petition to quash proceedings – FIR contain unacceptable details – No allegation u/s 406 IPC against petitioner – Remote chances of conviction u/s 498-A IPC – It seemed that estranged wife went ahead to implicate relatives of husband to save her estranged marriage – Held – Permission to prosecute petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court – Proceedings quashed.

258.

Jaswant Singh and others Versus Harjit Kaur and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Vexatious prosecution

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) Crimes 332, 1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 243

Misappropriation of dowry articles against husband and relatives – Complainant by wife -Marriage solemnized more than 2 years back during which she lived with in-laws – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and complaint – Divorce proceedings in motion – Held – Misappropriation by relatives vague – Action of complainant possibly to take revenge against her husband”s relations – Complaint against main petitioner to be continued and against relations quashed – Petition partly allowed.

259.

Jaswinder Kaur and others Versus Harjinder Kaur

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay in filing complaint, Omission in complaint, Strained relation between spouse, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) C.C.Cases 166 (HC)

Dowry case – Petition for quashing proceedings – Complainant-wife alleged harassment and maltreatment for insufficient dowry – She also alleged that her dowry gifts were misappropriated and she was turned out of matrimonial home – No specific entrustment of articles to any accused alleged in complaint – Complainant living away from her husband for 3 years before filing her complaint, do not rule out the possibility of strained relationship between them as no child was born out of such marriage – Time period for bringing offence u/s 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act had expired – Given facts of case, proceedings against other petitioners except husband quashed – Husband to be tried u/s 498-A, 406 IPC.

260.

Jatinder Singh and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Absence of sanction of competent authority, Validity of framing of charges

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(2) Crimes 595, 1993(2) RCR (Criminal) 121, II(1993) CCR 1249

Charges framed under r/w Sec. 4 and 6 Dowry Prohibition Act – Revision against – No sanction from DM – Complaint u/s 498-A filed by wife at Jind while the couple resided at Kaithal – Held – Charge u/s 4 not proper, as the Courts are not competent to take cognizance in absence of sanction – Also Court at Jind had no jurisdiction over matter – Charge u/s 498-A IPC not made out – Set aside – Petition allowed.

261.

Jitender Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Validity of framing of charges

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) C.C.Cases 66 (SC)

Cruelty and misappropriation of dowry article – Complaint – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Thereafter FIR registered and challan was filed – Charge framed – Petition against – Held – No infirmity in framing of charge – No ground to quash proceedings.
 

262.

Jiwni and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  P.K.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1996

Citation(s) :     1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 710

Dowry atricles misappropriated at Safidon – At Rohtak i.e. at matrimonial home bride was subjected to cruelty and more dowry was demanded – Territorial jurisdiction of Court  – Challenged – Held – Court at Safidon where misappropriation was alleged has jurisdiction to try all the offence u/s 406 and 498-A IPC as they are the part of same transaction.

263.

Kali Ram Versus Bimla Devi

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Brar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of summoning order, Quashing of complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 28

Offence under – Summoning order – Wife filed complaint against husband, his brother and father wherein she alleged that her dowry articles were not returned – Further complaint included only insult of complainant and her parents along with refusal to return Istridhan – Entrustment of such articles made to whom, where, when not mentioned in complaint — Held – Allegations leveled are of vague nature and not made specifically – No relevancy of testimony of witnesses during trial in respect of such allegations – Offence not made out against petitioners – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

264.

Kamal Mohan Kaura Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Bakhshish Kaur

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Compounding of offence, Cordial relation between spouse

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A, 120-B                           Year(s) :  2000

Citation(s) :     2000(1) C.C.Cases 32 (HC)

FIR registered – Misappropriation and cruelty alleged by wife in FIR – Spouse reached to a compromise – Started living together – Wife unwilling to pursue the case – Held – Though the offences alleged are not compoundable, FIR and proceedings to be quashed in the interest of justice – Petition allowed.

265.

Kamla Rani and others Versus Saroj

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 279

Charges under – Husband and relatives implicated – Matrimonial discord – Motive to wreck revenge with relatives – Wife beaten at Ludhiyana – Held – No jurisdiction of Sangrur Court – Only husband and his brother to be charged – Complaint against others to be quashed.

266.

Krishan Lal and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband, Return of dowry articles to wife through police

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 319

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles – Complaint by wife against husband and his parents, and three brothers – Husband only thrashed wife once – Whatever articles of so-called dowry were left by the wife at the premises of husband have been returned to her in proceedings conducted through police and a certified copy in this regard has been placed on record – Held – Charges not made out – Proceedings to be quashed.

267.

Krishan Lal and others Versus State of and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.S.Sekhon

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Date / time / manner of cruelty not mentioned in FIR, Quashing of proceedings, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) Crimes 43

FIR against husband and others – Petition by all accused except husband, seeking quashment of proceedings – Entrustment of dowry articles not specifically mentioned to any person in FIR – Only general allegation that all accused received such articles – Cruelty also alleged in a general manner – Time, date and manner of misbehaviour not specifically alleged in FIR – Petitioners not residing with accused husband – Held – FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners quashed.

268.

Kartar Singh and others Versus Rajdev Kaur and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Rathor

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Ingredient of offence not mentioned in summon order, Non speaking order, Quashing of summoning order, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 403                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) C.C.Cases 129 (HC), 1992(1) RCR (Criminal) 337 

Misappropriation of istridhan – Summoning order – Examination of PWs corroborating the allegations – However whether ingredients of Sec. 406 IPC are made by such examination, not mentioned in summon order – Held – Summon order a non speaking one – Entrustment of istridhan to petitioners not proved – Thus no question of returning the same arises – Offence for refusing the demand for returning istridhan to be made only after entrustment is proved – It seemed that complaint was aimed at harassing the old in-laws – Summon order against petitioners set aside.

269.

Krishana Rani @ Krishna Devi and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Time / date of cruelty not mentioned in FIR, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Illicit relation of husband – Liability of his relatives

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 499, 494, 34, 506, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 701, 1991(1) C.C.Cases 340 (HC)

Complaint against husband and his relatives – FIR – Quashing of – Illicit relation of husband alleged – Child delivered by woman with whom such relation was alleged – Wife also alleged an attempt to burn her – Time and date of such incident not mentioned in FIR – Held – Allegations of bigamy, beating and attempting to set her on fire and misappropriation of istridhan against petitioners of vague nature – No criminal liability can be fixed on relatives of husband for acts of husband – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed.

270.

Krishna Devi and others Versus Rajni Bala

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.K.Sandhu

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Entrustment of dowry after 2 days of marriage, Territorial jurisdiction as ground to quash complaint

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 493

Territorial jurisdiction – Complaint – Solemnization of marriage at Ambala – Complainant-wife living at Ludhiana where dowry was alleged to be entrusted after two days of marriage – Quashing of complaint sought on ground of jurisdiction and that such entrustment should not be believed – Held – Prima facie offence established by complaint – Allegations could not be disbelieved – Complaint not to be quashed only by questioning  the jurisdiction of Ludhiana Court.

271.

Krishna Devi and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Misappropriation of funds collected from shop keeper, Promise to repay embezzled amount – Not admission of complicity in offence, Quashing of FIR, Misappropriation

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 154, 1988-91 C.C.Cases 383 (Supp.)

Petition for quashing of FIR u/s 406 IPC – Accused charged for misappropriation of amount – Wife of accused assured to claimant to make good the loss – Complaint against wife of accused – Complaint does not carry any material to make out a criminal case against the wife of accused – Held – FIR qua wife of accused quashed as if she had made any promise to claimant, same may be only an attempt to save husband from prosecution – Her promise not impliedly admit her involvement in embezzlement – As regards accused, no ground to quash FIR as it clearly alleged that he embezzled funds collected from various shop keepers of different places to whom the goods had been supplied by the complainant – Petition partly allowed.

272.

Krishna Rani and others Versus State of and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Validity of framing of charges, Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Illicit relation of husband – Liability of his relatives, Date / time / manner of cruelty not mentioned in FIR, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      494, 34, 498-A, 506, 406                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) Crimes 329

Wife filed complaint against husband and his relatives – Framing of charges by Magistrate under – Charges sought to be quashed in petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Abetment of bigamy not specifically alleged – Allegations of misappropriation of istridhan, previous incident of beating by husband and setting complainant on fire were of vague nature – No date or time of previous incident of giving beatings and sprinkling of kersosene mentioned in FIR – Complainant alleged illicit relation of her husband with a notorious and bad woman, who had since given birth to a child from such relationship – Petitioners were alleged to be having a hand in the matter of husband keeping another woman – Held – Relatives cannot be held criminally liable if husband of complainant had illicit relation with a woman which resulted in the birth of child – FIR and proceedings qua petitioners quashed – Impugned order of Magistrate set aside – Petition allowed.

273.

Krishna Wanti Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  H.S.Brar

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Interference with investigation – Power of Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 593

Cruelty – Criminal breach of trust – Complaint by wife – Investigation – Sec. 482 and 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Held – Investigation a statutory duty of police and State – No interference by Court at such stage – Investigation to be quashed by High Court only under compelling and justifiable reasons – Petition dismissed.

274.

Kulvinder Kumar and others Versus Ramnik Goel

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.D.Bajaj

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Second complaint – Maintainability, Revival of complaint on ground of fraud, Compromise, Alternate remedy

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 323, 406, 506                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(2) RCR (Criminal) 34

Second complaint – Maintainability of – Proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. pending – Criminal proceedings for offences under – Compromise – Dismissal of complaint as withdrawn by wife – Compromise knocked down – Second complaint by wife on same facts – Wife alleged that she was duped into settlement by husband – Held – Second complaint not sustainable by application of principle of res judicata – Wife at the best could revive the earlier complaint on grounds of misrepresentation and fraud.

275.

Kshetra Pal Verma and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Gupta

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Threat of divorce if dowry demand not fulfilled

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(3) C.C.Cases 397 (HC)

Complaint by wife against husband – FIR – Sought to be quashed – Wife in Delhi before lodging FIR as evident by ration card and identity card – Alleged that wife left her in-laws and went with her father subsequent to lodging FIR – Wife threatened to be given divorce if demand of dowry was not fulfilled – Prima facie case established by allegations in FIR – Investigation in action – Held – No ground for quashing the FIR – Petition dismissed.

276.

Kuldeep Sharma and others Versus Anju Bala

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  J.B.Garg

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of summoning order, Delay in filing complaint, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1992

Citation(s) :     1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 121

Cruelty – Misappropriation of Istridhan – Complaint – Husband and his parents implicated – Summon order – Quashing of – Dowry alleged to be demanded in 1987 for Rs. 2000/- – Complaint in 1990 – Pendency of proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Summon order passed – Appeal against – Held – Order not justified – Complaint and proceedings to be quashed.

277.

Khazan Singh and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Arun Madan

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Probation, Absence of injury on prosecutrix

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 376                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(3) Crimes 813

Conviction u/s 498-A IPC – Father-in- law acquitted for offence u/s 376 IPC – Husband, his mother and father acquitted of charges u/s 406 IPC – Appeal – Medical evidence didn”t mention any sign of injury or violence on person of victim – Held – Acquittal only to be interfered with in the light of cogent evidence against accused – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC and acquittal under other sections by Trial Court calls for no interference – Benefit of probation extended to father and mother in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

278.

Khuman Chand Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Amaresh Kumar Singh

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Customary gifts given before marriage – Dowry?

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406                           Year(s) :  1998

Citation(s) :     1998 CRI. L. J. 1670, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 261

Misappropriation of gifts in cash and kind given to relatives and father of husband during various ceremonies prior to marriage was alleged – Marriage not solemnized as father of husband demanded Rs 50000/- in cash – Held – Such gifts given voluntarily as per customs not to be regarded as entrustment or dowry – Hence no offence made out.

279.

Khushbakhat Rai and others Versus Sunita Rani

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.S.Chahal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993(1) RCR (Criminal) 56

Matrimonial offence – Misappropriation of stridhan – Petitioners, relatives of complainant”s husband charged for said offence – Cognizance of offence taken, summoning orders issued – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings – No offence made out against sister-in-law and brother-in-law of husband of complainant, charged in said complaint – Entrustment of certain articles of dowry to them at the time of marriage was infact for delivery at matrimonial home of complainant – The task done by them successfully – Both of them living at some other place, proceedings against liable to be set aside – However regarding other petitioners, specific allegations made in the complaint – Proceedings against them proper – Petition allowed accordingly.

280.

Kiran Mandal Versus Mohini Mandal

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  G.R.Majithia

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Power of police to adjudicate on matrimonial disputes, Jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  1994

Citation(s) :     1994(1) RCR (Criminal) 329

Jurisdiction over matrimonial disputes – Dispute over dowry articles, alimony and other matrimonial issues – Held – Only matrimonial Court had exclusive jurisdiction over such issues – Police not competent to exercise power over such disputes and adjudicate thereupon.

281.

Kiran Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.K.Srivastava

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Quashing of FIR, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  1999

Citation(s) :     1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 97

Quashment of FIR – Cruelty and misappropriation of stridhan – Charges against husband and in laws u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – FIR lodged by wife – Held – Sister of husband aged ten years at time of marriage – Not possible for her to beat her Bhabhi – No specific allegations against appellants – Only accusation of general nature imputed – FIR to be quashed.

282.

Kishan Sharma and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.S.Grewal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Date / time / manner of cruelty not mentioned in FIR, Entrustment not stated in FIR, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  1989

Citation(s) :     1989(2) RCR (Criminal) 13

Cruelty – Misappropriation of dowry articles alleged – FIR by wife – FIR not mentioning date, time or manner of alleged cruelty – Entrustment of articles to any particular accused not stated in FIR – Held – No offence u/s 406 and 498-A IPC made out –  FIR to be quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – 1998(1) RCR 527 relied upon – Petition allowed.

283.

Sant Singh Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  R.C.Kathuria

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of summoning order

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 719

Misappropriation of Stridhan – Petitioner charged for misappropriation of certain items given at the time of marriage – Summoning order issued – Petition for quashment – High Court held charges made in complaint are general in nature, each and every member of family of in-laws tried to be implicated – Impugned order set aside.

284.

Santa Devi and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Mahmood Ali Khan

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Continuing offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(3) JCC 1786, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 652

Territorial jurisdiction – Matrimonial offences – Petitioners charged for cruelty and criminal breach of trust – Charges framed by Magistrate – Revision – High Court held revision not maintainable – Claim of petitioners that the offence charged had not been committed within the jurisdiction of said Court – It has been committed at Barasana, District Mathura U.P. and case has not be registered at Mathura not Delhi, is invalid – Cruelty is continuing offence, not divisible in segments – Courts of both the places have jurisdiction to try the case – Revision allowed.

285.

Shailesh Kumar Verma Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Adarsh Kumar Goel

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Territorial jurisdiction, Deletion of charge

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 249

Proceedings u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Petition seeking quashment of proceedings – After filing of instant petition, investigating agency has filed challan and has deleted Sec. 406 IPC and now the case is pending u/s 498-A IPC – Held – No ground to quash proceedings u/s 498-A IPC at this stage even when it is pleaded on part of petitioner that Faridabad Court will have no jurisdiction as cruelty, if any, was at Delhi – Direction given to petitioner to return the dowry articles, as per the list of petitioner himself, in presence of a senior citizen of the locality, to be selected by the petitioner – Question of territorial jurisdiction left to be decided by the Trial Court as per law.

286.

Sher Singh and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  V.M.Jain

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of FIR, Complaint against relatives of husband

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 539

Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Wife lodged FIR against husband, his brothers, bhabhi and in-laws – Held – In the circumstances of the case no ground to proceed against brother and bhabhi as allegations against them found to be vague and FIR was lodged to implicate them falsely – FIR against brother and bhabhi quashed.

287.

State Versus Dhruv Kumar Singh

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Sunil Kumar Garg

Rajasthan High Court

Subject(s) :  Vague allegations, Absence of allegations in divorce petition, Compromise

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 623, 2002 CRI. L. J. 1315

Proof of cruelty and criminal breach of trust – Respondent charged for said offences – Acquitted – Appeal against – No substance found in allegations of cruelty and harassment made by wife – Divorce petition pending before Family Court, no such allegations made in reply filed there – During the pendency of criminal trial, efforts of reconciliation by complainant rejected by Family Court, divorce granted – Offence alleged not substantiated – Held – Acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed.

288.

Dr. Anand Shrivastava and others State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.L.Kochar

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subject(s) :  Malacious prosecution, Complaint to pressurize the husband, Binding nature of finding of Civil Court, Complaint against relatives of husband, Abuse of process of Court, Quashing of proceedings

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 325, 323                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(4) Crimes 562

Matrimonial dispute – Petitioners charged for cruelty, harassment of complainant – Complainant and petitioner-1 married in 1985, husband (petitioner-1) allegedly illtreated wife mentally and physically, in the complaint – Petition for quashment of proceedings – Plea of petitioner, that complaint was lodged in order to pressurize them to settle at place of residence of brothers of complainant – Complainant had also filed a divorce petition on grounds of cruelty – Petitioner-1 had filed counter claim, claiming divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty – Matrimonial Court relied on counter claim of husband and granted divorce – Reports filed by complainant were found to be pressurize petitioner – No specific averments made against father-in-law and mother-in-law, petitioner-2 and 3, who are of old age, 73 and 68 years old respectively – Findings of Civil Courts are binding on Criminal Courts – Court is not prohibited to analyze any material provided by accused, at the stage of framing of charge – Allowing proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of process of law – Held – Proceedings quashed – Petition allowed.

289.

Gurdit Singh Versus Jeeto

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Ashutosh Mohunta

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of proceedings, Delay in filing complaint, Abuse of process of Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(3) RCR (Criminal) 248

Petition filed for quashing the proceeding u/s 406 of the Act alongwith Sec. 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act where the complaint had been filed after two decades – No evidence on the record to show that any sincere efforts were made by the petitioner for recovering the dowry articles – Held – Proceedings quashed as it was abuse of the process of the Court – Petition dismissed.

290.

Harvinder Singh Versus Binder Kaur and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.S.Gupta

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Divorce on mutual consent – Effect on criminal case, Compounding of offence

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002 I AD (Cr.) DHC 238, 2002(1) JCC 366

Matrimonial dispute – Petitioner-husband and wife-respondent got decree of divorce by mutual consent – Respondent not willing to withdraw the FIR u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Petition for quashment of FIR and proceedings – High Court held that no relief can be granted to petitioner – Property related dispute or compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C., here the value of property is more than Rs. 250/- – Further no relief also can be granted u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition dismissed.

291.

Inderjit Kaur and others Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Agarwal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Validity of framing of charges, Dying declaration, Suicidal note

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      304-B, 406, 34                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002 I AD (Cr.) DHC 333

Appreciation of evidence – Framing of charges – Petitioners charged for dowry death, cruelty – Charges – Petition to quash proceedings – Although deceased”s suicidal note has no mention of dowry demand, but statement of witness recorded during investigation cannot be ignored – Allegations with regard to dowry demand made by parents of victim, cannot be subsided – Dying declaration is only one of the evidences – Appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of charges is not permissible – Petition dismissed.

292.

Kamlesh Verma and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  S.K.Agarwal

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Compromise, Compounding of offence, Quashing of FIR, Settlement amount – Maintenance?

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406, 498-A                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(1) JCC 547, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 459

Matrimonial dispute – Settlement not followed – Compounding of offence – Petitioner charged for cruelty by respondent-2, wife of petitioner-3 – Some stridhan articles were recovered from petitioners during investigation – During pendency of case, petitioner-3 got divorce – Appeal filed against decree of divorce in High Court – During pendency of appeal, issue settled between both parties, on initiative of High Court – Petitioner-3 paid Rs. 2.25 lacs to respondent-2 in lieu of withdrawal of criminal proceedings – As a result, petitioner sought quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Respondent-2 opposed quashment proceedings saying settlement amount was maintenance paid by husband, some jewellery is also to be recovered from petitioners – Court held the contentions of respondent-2 invalid – At the time of settlement, no claim as to jewellery made by respondent-2 – Further, as respondent-2 is working in railways, settlement amount cannot be paid only as maintenance – Keeping in view the settlement before same Court, petitioner”s pleas accepted – Petition allowed.

293.

Raj Kumar Khanna Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Usha Mehra

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Pendency of divorce petition, FIR lodged after two years, Complainant leaving home two years back after few days of marriage, Absence of evidence of entrustment of property, Every harassment not cruelty – Offence not made out, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 34                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002 I AD (Cr.) DHC 340, 2002(1) JCC 327

Matrimonial dispute – Petitioner, charged for cruelty and criminal breach of trust, by daughter-in-law alongwith all of his family members – Petitioners and complainant all were lawyers practicing in the Court – Divorce petition u/s 27 HMA pending, filed by son of petitioner – Complainant left home of her husband two years back – After two years filed FIR for said offences – Police in pursuance of FIR raided petitioner”s house, seized some articles – Writ petition for quashment of FIR – High Court held FIR frivolous – Complainant had left matrimonial home within few days of marriage, did not return and filed FIR against whole family – Police failed to explain reason for raid to petitioner”s house – It is likely that police acted in connivance with complainant, seized articles do not belong to stridhan – FIR lodged for cruelty by petitioners not substantiated – Harassment of every type will not result in cruelty, only demand of dowry will result in cruelty – There is no evidence on record that petitioners were entrusted of any property regarding complainant – In absence of entrustment question of criminal breach of trust does not arise – FIR liable to be quashed – Petition allowed.

294.

Ravinder Kumar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  M.L.Singhal

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(3) Crimes 264

Criminal breach of trust and cruelty – Appellant charged for said offences by wife – Parents and sister-in-law also charged along with – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR – High Court held petition maintainable – However, unmarried sister-in-law cannot be involved in the crime alleged, as the dowry extracted will be appropriated by husband and parents only – Case against sister-in-law quashed, continue against husband and parents – Parents exempted from personal appearance – Petition partly allowed.

295. AV at Judis

Rishi Anand and others Versus Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  D.P.Mohapatra

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR, Matrimonial discord

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002 CAR 207 (SC), 2002(2) Crimes 28 (SC), 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 272

Criminal breach of trust – Quashment of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Appellants, two brothers and parents charged for said offences by divorced wife of one of the brothers – Cognizance of offence taken by MM – Petition for quashment of proceeding dismissed by High Court – SLP – Supreme Court held proceeding against A-1, brother of husband of complainant liable to be set aside – Although named in FIR, no specific allegation made against him – Left for USA on the night of marriage of complainant, never returned – No entrustment of Istridhan articles to him – Proceeding against him quashed – However, as against A-2, father-in-law of complainant, proceedings are proper – In export certificate, it is mentioned that complainant had taken her jewellery, and other articles returned to her – But there is dispute of returning of other Istridhan articles – Truth to be decided during trial hearing the contentions of both the parties – Appeal partly allowed.

296. AV at Judis

Sunil Aggarwal and others Versus Commissioner of Police and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  B.A.Khan

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Delay in FIR fatal, Quashing of FIR, Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR – When permissible?

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(2) Crimes 245, 2002(1) JCC 410, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 267

Application of – Extra ordinary powers – When to be exercised – Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution – Quashment of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Petitioners charged for criminal breach of trust, cruelty by wife of P-1 – Marriage 19 years old, incident also passed time – Held – It is well settled principle that FIR is to be quashed only when complaint fails to lay factual foundation of the case – If foundation is laid then Court is not to interfere with investigation, investigation is sole prerogative of police not to be interfered with – In instant case matrimonial dispute alleged by complainant, qualified advocate is 19 years old – Other accused petitioners other than P-1 are his relatives – Court is convinced that allegation by wife, complainant do not make any offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC against other petitioners than husband – Although it is said that other petitioners taunted abused and harassed complainant, still charge not substantiate – There exist unexplained delay in filing the complaint – Court in exercise of extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution, has to prevent abuse of process of law – FIR quashed against other petitioners than P-1 – Against P-1 FIR maintainable – Petition dismissed.

297.

Swaran Lata Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.C.Gupta

P & H High Court

Subject(s) :  Overt act not assigned, Complaint against relatives of husband, Quashing of FIR

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406                           Year(s) :  2002

Citation(s) :     2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 616

Proof of – Cruelty and criminal breach of trust – Petitioner, mother-in-law and Dewar charged for said offences – FIR lodged – Petition for quashment of FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court held petition maintainable – Golden Kera had been given to husband by parents of complainant – Petitioners cannot be held liable for this instance, FIR filed only after divorce petition filed by husband – No specific overt act attributed to petitioners – Offences not made out – FIR quashed – Petition allowed.

=============================================================================

Jagdish Thakkar Versus State

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Mohd. Shamim

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Recourse to Sec. 406 / 498-A to recover jewellery – Permissibility

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      376                           Year(s) :  1993

Citation(s) :     1993 JCC 117

Sec. 406, 498-A IPC – Scope of – Whether proceedings under said provisions can be taken recourse of to recover jewellery and dowry articles? [No].

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

482

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

1.

Nazir Ahmed Wani and others Versus State and others

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  Arun B.Saharya

Delhi High Court

Subject(s) :  Quashing of complaint, Conduct of accused, Abuse of process of Court

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      498-A, 406, 482                           Year(s) :  1991

Citation(s) :     1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 618, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 419 (HC), 1991 JCC 241

Offence u/s 406 / 498-A IPC – Parties settling the matter – Husband paying Rs. 60,000 to the wife towards satisfaction of all her claims – Wife demanding further amount and return of dowry articles – Not withdrawing complaint – Petition by husband u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings – Held – Conduct of wife amounts to harassment of her husband and continuous of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court – Complaint and proceedings quahsed.

2.

Rashmi Kumar Versus Mahesh Kumar Bhada

Hon’ble Justice(s) :  K.Ramaswamy

Supreme Court of India

Subject(s) :  Istridhana – What?, Dowry articles – Joint property?, Acts of cruelty, Entrustment

Indian Penal Code

Section(s)  :      405, 406, 482, 173                           Year(s) :  1997

Citation(s) :     1997 I AD S.C. (Cr.) 37, I(1997) CCR 168 (SC), 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 43

Istridhana – What? – As per sec 2, 3, and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are those properties which were gifted to girl before marriage, at the time of the marriage or at time of giving farewell or thereafter are her Stridhana properties – It is absolute property with which all rights to dispose of at her own pleasure and husband may use them during the time of distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to wife – It does not become the joint property of the wife and her husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof – Prima facie the case of criminal breach of trust, entrustment, Istridhana was made out against the accused where accused-husband and wife used to live together having three children, matrimonial cruelty was committed by husband as he had thrown out the wife from the house – A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the wife and the husband had admitted to take her back and suit was withdrawn but the husband refused to stand by his commitment – Suit filed again alongwith complainant – Held – Where entrustment of Istridhana to husband or his family member is proved, and same is dishonestly misappropriated / converted, it is not required to prove any further special agreement so as to make out the offence of criminal breach of trust – Prima facie, the case was made out against the accused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!