498a
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Respected Experts:
Is 498A maintainable after Talaq (both Muslim).
1) Talaq Pronounced in Nov 2009.
2) FIR for 498A filed in Oct 2010.
3) Challan/Chargesheet in Judicial Magistrate Court in Dec 2010.
kuldeep kumar
(Expert) 17 October 2011
although 498a is a countinuing offence but that does not means it shall be entertained after 1 year.i think unwise to its applicabilty after one year.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 17 October 2011
in case your ex wife has filed 498A case againt you after one year of divorce it does raise supicion in mind of the court as to the intention of your ex wife . i belive there is a judgement it is not maintanable after divorce .
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 17 October 2011
Yes it is very much maintainable.
The divorce has nothing to do with the commission of the criminal offence.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 October 2011
Mr Ajay Sethi,
Can I get the Judgement.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 17 October 2011
498a is not applicable after divorce in any religion. However, if the talaaqnama is not served properly, the lady would contest the validity of divorce even.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 18 October 2011
I endorse the views of Mr.Barman. Subsequent divorce does not take away the right of an aggrieved woman to get the perperator of crime punished within limitation period. Had it been so then every man after committing offence of 498A shall immediately give divorce i.e. Talaque by pronouncing this word three times.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 October 2011
It is really curious to know that after divorce 498A is not maintainable.
I ma eagerly waiting for enlightenment on this aspect.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 October 2011
in the case cited below supreme court has quashed FIR filed after divorce . after divorce husband remarried . wife relatives filed complaint under section 498A that husband harrased wife for more dowry . court held it was filed fro ulterior motives and quahsed the sAME
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5910/2006)
Pashaura Singh …Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondents
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has
challenged the order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said order, the petition
filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002
registered at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498-A, 494,
506/34, IPC has been dismissed.
3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada.
On May 7, 1997, she married Pashaura Singh Sidhu –
appellant – at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga, Punjab. She
left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband
and, accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998.
They stayed together for few months and then relations
between them became strained. Kamaljeet, thereafter, started
living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for
divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court
of British Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his
favour and their marriage stood dissolved with effect from
February 8, 2001. After the dissolution of marriage, Pashaura
Singh came to India and remarried on January 2, 2002.
Pashaura Singh went back to Canada with his newly wedded
wife and both of them have been residing there.
4. On January 21, 2002, Kamaljeet’s brother Balwant
Singh lodged a first information report being F.I.R. No. 9 at
Police Station Sehna against Pashaura Singh, Hakam Singh
(father of Pashaura Singh), Randhir Singh (brother of Pashaura
Singh), Charanjit Kaur (wife of Randhir Singh) and Harbans
Kaur (mother of Pashaura Singh) alleging therein that on May
7, 1997 he performed his sister Kamaljeet Kaur’s marriage with
2
Pashaura Singh; that at the time of marriage, according to his
status, he gave rupees four lacs in cash, gold jewelry, utensils,
almirah, fifty-one suits, five bags etc. but the accused started
harassing his sister Kamaljeet Kaur and threatened to kill her if
she did not bring car, electronic items etc. and that he has now
come to know that Pashaura Singh has entered into second
marriage in the first week of January, 2002. A case under
Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34, IPC was registered against the
accused persons and it appears that the police submitted
challan against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Barnala.
5. Randhir Singh, Charanjit Kaur (Rajinder Kaur),
Hakam Singh and Harbans Kaur filed a petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R.
No. 9 and criminal prosecution against them. Vide order dated
April 29, 2004, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed
F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered against them
and all subsequent proceedings.
6. Pashaura Singh by a separate petition under
Section 482 of the Code prayed for quashing F.I.R. No. 9/2002
3
and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him but, as
noticed above, the High Court by its order dated May 24, 2006
dismissed his petition. The High Court in its cryptic order, while
dismissing the petition, observed that Pashaura Singh has
married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already
married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has
not been dissolved.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and upon careful perusal of the materials placed before us, in
our judgment, the order of High Court cannot be sustained for
more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court gravely
erred in observing that Pashaura Singh married second time on
January 2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet
Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has not been dissolved. The
certificate of divorce dated February 26, 2001 issued by the
New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia
shows that the marriage of Pashaura Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur
stood dissolved on February 8, 2001. As a matter of fact, this
fact is noticed in the order dated April 29, 2004 whereby the
High Court quashed F.I.R. No. 9 and the subsequent criminal
4
proceedings against the family members of Pashaura Singh. In
the affidavit filed by Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of
Police in response to the petition filed by the appellant under
Section 482 before the High Court, it has been admitted that
during investigation on March 14, 2002 Hakam Singh had
produced photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have
been issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The
observation of the High Court, thus, that Pashaura Singh
married second time, although his marriage has not been
dissolved, is ex-facie contrary to record.
8. Section 494, IPC, inter-alia, requires the following
ingredients to be satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have
contracted first marriage; (ii) he must have married again; (iii)
the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv) the spouse must
be living. Insofar as present case is concerned the appellant’s
marriage with Kamaljeet Kaur was not subsisting on January 2,
2002 when he is said to have married second time. Pertinently
before the High Court, along with reply, the complainant
Balwant Singh annexed copy of an affidavit filed by Kamaljeet
Kaur which states that she was not aware of the divorce
5
proceedings filed by her husband Pashaura Singh. However,
from this affidavit, it is apparent that her husband has obtained
a divorce judgment. There is nothing in the affidavit that divorce
judgment has been stayed or set aside. On the face of the
allegations made in the first information report, therefore,
ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC are not
satisfied.
9. Insofar as offence under Section 498-A is
concerned, the High Court in its earlier order dated April 29,
2004 in the petition filed by the family members, observed thus:
“I have perused the First Information Report
registered against the petitioners.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that they
started harassing Kamaljeet Kaur Gill for not bringing more
dowry. No demand of dowry has been made by the
petitioners, nor is there any specific entrustment, as alleged
in the First Information Report of dowry articles to the
petitioners. Parties have divorced each other, as per the
order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Annexure
P-1). Order is dated February 25, 2001. It is after this divorce
that Pishora Singh got married in India on January 2, 2002.”
10. Moreover, in the affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur referred
to hereinabove, there is not a word about demand of dowry or
harassment on account of dowry by the appellant.
6
11. We have no hesitation in holding that the first
information report lodged by Balwant Singh is manifestly
attended with malafides and actuated with ulterior motive. The
prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate, rather it is
frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The
appellant has made out a case for quashing the first information
report and all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.
12. For the reasons indicated above, appeal is allowed
and order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High court of
Punjab and Haryana is set aside. Resultantly, F.I.R. No. 9
dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna and
all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed
and set aside.
13. The pending applications stand disposed of.
……………………J
(Tarun Chatterjee)
…….……………..J
(R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi,
November 13, 2009.
7
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 October 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. 37932-M of 2006
Partap Singh and another
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
Respondents
2. Criminal Misc. No. 49931-M of 2006
Gurnam Singh
Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
Respondents
3. Criminal Misc. No. 59336-M of 2006
Gurdit Singh and another
Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
Respondents
Date of decision: 4th October, 2010
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Tarunvir Vashist, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab,
for the State.
None for respondent No.2.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, three petitions viz. (1) Criminal Misc. No.37932-M of 2006 preferred by Partap Singh-father-in-law and Kulwant Kaur-mother-in-law (2) Criminal Misc. No.49931-M of 2006 preferred by Criminal Misc. Nos. 37932-M; 49931-M and 59336-M of 2006 2 Gurnam Singh-brother of the husband and (3) Criminal Misc. No.59336-M of 2006 filed by Gurdit Singh-elder brother of father-in-law and Tejinder Singh-husband shall be decided together.
FIR in these cases was lodged by Kulwinder Kaur, who was a citizen of United Kingdom. As per the FIR, she was resident of 7, Scribers Lane, Har Green Birmingham B-280 NY. The marriage of complainant-Kulwinder Kaur was solemnized with Tejinder Singh at Ludhiana on 8th May, 2004. It is not disputed that for solemnizing the marriage, complainant-Kulwinder Kaur came to India only one month before her marriage and thereafter she left for United Kingdom. Thereafter, immigration of her husband-Tejinder Singh was sponsored and he also left for United Kingdom on 24th October, 2004. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the divorce proceedings (Annexures P-10 to P-14) between the husband and wife initiated and concluded in the Uxbridge County Court and has stated that all property and entrustment disputes between the parties have been resolved by the Matrimonial County Court while granting divorce. The matter has been investigated by the Ludhiana police. It is stated that the only allegation against the petitioners is that the dowry articles were entrusted to them in India and during the stay of complainant-Kulwinder Kaur in India, her husband and his relations had misbehaved with the complainant and had demanded a car. It is stated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-9) that Tejinder Singh reached United Kingdom on 24th October, 2004 and resided there with his father-in-law. On 24th February, 2005, he is stated to have left the house for an unknown place. For search of Tejinder Singh, the complainant- Kulwinder Kaur and her father came to India and a Panchayat was called, where on 17th August, 2005, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle-in-law of the complainant had demanded dowry articles. The Criminal Misc. Nos. 37932-M; 49931-M and 59336-M of 2006 3 police after enquiry, had deleted the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 382 IPC, however they came to a conclusion that offence punishable under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 IPC was made out against the accused.
This is one of those typical cases, where after the marriage, bride and bridegroom have gone abroad. The wife is a citizen of United Kingdom. She had facilitated immigration of her husband, who had married a Non-Resident-Indian wife only for the purposes of his settlement in a foreign country. Having reached abroad, he deserted his wife and had obtained a divorce. The hurt of a Non-Resident-Indian wife that she has been used as a conduit for immigration, can be well understood. In this context, the allegations in the FIR have been examined. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the husband and wife, after obtaining divorce, parted their ways and are residing happily in United Kingdom. The property and entrustment of the articles was a subject matter before the Uxbridge County Court, which has granted divorce. A similar controversy was examined by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 'Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others v. State of Punjab and others' (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 712, wherein it was held as under:
"32. Furthermore, the larger part of offence, if any, has been committed only in Canada. Why the father of Respondent 3 had to come from Canada to Jalandhar to lodge an FIR is difficult to comprehend. Respondent 3 and the first informant do not say that the inquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police on the representation made by Appellant 2 was incorrect. It has also not been stated that as to on what material, the chargesheet had been submitted. we, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the allegations contained in the FIR had been made with an ulterior motive to harass Criminal Misc. Nos. 37932-M; 49931-M and 59336-M of 2006 4 the appellants. Continuance of the criminal proceeding against them would, therefore, amount to abuse of process of the Court."
Admittedly, Tejinder Singh had left the house in United Kingdom, thereafter, as to why the complainant-Kulwinder Kaur and her father came to India in search of Tejinder Singh and then they met the relations of husband where they made a demand of dowry articles? This is something which this Court cannot comprehend. This kind of allegations are not only unnatural, improbable and unconvincing but have been coined only as an abuse of the process of criminal law. It is another case where provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A IPC have been misused. The very fact that complainant aggrieved wife had stayed in India for less than one month and husband cohabited with complainant wife for a period of about six months i.e. from October 2004 to February 2005 in United Kingdom and thereafter, obtained divorce from County Court in United Kingdom settling all disputes is sufficient to hold that proceedings in the present case should be quashed. Hence, the above said three petitions are hereby accepted and the impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
October 4, 2010
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 October 2011
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1274 of 2004
PETITIONER: Ruchi Agarwal
RESPONDENT: Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/2004
BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3769 of 2003)
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the High Court of Uttaranchal quashed a
criminal complaint filed by the appellant against the respondents.
The complaint was made by the appellant alleging offences under
sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the
alleged offences having taken place within the jurisdiction of Ram
Nagar Police Station of Bilaspur district, the court at Rampur district
did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint,
hence, while quashing the chargesheet and the summoning order of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, transferred the investigation of
the case to Police Station Bilaspur, district Rampur. It is the above
order of the High Court that is under challenge before us in this
appeal.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the courts below and in
this Court, certain developments have taken place which have a material
bearing on the merits of this appeal.
The complaint which the appellant herein filed is dated 10.4.2002.
Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by the appellant-wife before
the Family Court at Nainital. In the said divorce petition a compromise
was arrived between the parties in which it was stated that the first
respondent-husband was willing for a consent divorce and that the
appellant-wife had received all her Stridhan and maintenance in lump
sum. She also declared in the said compromise deed that she is not
entitled to any maintenance in future. It is also stated in the said
compromise deed that the parties to the proceedings would withdraw all
criminal and civil complaints filed against each other which includes
the criminal complaint filed by the appellant which is the subject
matter of this appeal. The said compromise deed contains annexures with
the particulars of the items given to the appellant at the time of
marriage and which were returned. The said compromise deed is signed by
the appellant.
But before any order could be passed on the basis of the said
compromise petition, the appellant herein wrote a letter to the Family
Court at Nainital which was received by the Family Court on 3.10.2003
wherein it was stated that she was withdrawing the compromise petition
because she had not received the agreed amount. But subsequently when
her statement was recorded by the Family Court, she withdrew the said
letter of 3.10.2003 and stated before the court in her statement that
she wanted a divorce and that there is no dispute in relation to any
amount pending.
The Court, after recording the said statement, granted a divorce under
Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, dissolving the marriage by
mutual consent by its order dated 3.3.2004.
In the compromise petition, referred to herein above, both the parties
had agreed to withdraw all the civil and criminal cases filed by each
against the other. It is pursuant to this compromise, the above divorce
as sought for by the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant
to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew Criminal Case
No.63 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Nainital which was a
complaint filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for
maintenance. It is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the
appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise, said case
came to be dismissed. However, so far as the complaint under Sections
498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act is concerned, which is the subject matter of this
appeal, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same. It
is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed before the
High Court which came to be partially allowed on the ground of the
territorial jurisdiction, against the said order the appellant has
preferred this appeal.
From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the compromise
petition filed before the Family Court, the appellant admitted that she
has received Stridhan and maintenance in lump sum and that she will not
be entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook to
withdraw all proceedings civil and criminal filed and initiated by her
against the respondents within one month of the compromise deed which
included the complaint under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this
appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent-husband agreed to
withdraw his petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
pending before the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed
to give a consent divorce as sought for by the appellant. It is based
on the said compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by
her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial
compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal
case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for
reasons better known to her she did not withdraw that complaint from
which this appeal arises. That apart after the order of the High Court
quashing the said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction,
she has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we will
have to appreciate the merits of this appeal. Learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had
signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the
same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat
and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and
her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this
argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise
deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she
wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the
compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the
obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section
125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family
Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the
compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and
gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the
compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the
proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted
without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot
now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In
our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal
complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to
harass the respondents.
In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the
appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the
criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to
continue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete
justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings
arising from the Criminal Case No.Cr.No.224/2003 registered in Police
Station, Bilaspur, (Distt.Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and
506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against
the respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is
disposed of.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 18 October 2011
Thanx Mr. Ajay Sethi.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 18 October 2011
In none of the Judgement, it has been observed that the 498A shall not lie after divorce. In all the cases cited above and dealt with by Higher Courts, FIRs were quashed on merit of the case i.e. on factual aspects not on the ground of legal aspects. Veracity of the allegations levelled in FIR were suspected by the Courts for quashing FIRs. These judgments can not set precedents to be followed by all courts as if it has taken the shape of law. I agree with Mr. Barman's views again.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 18 October 2011
Equivalent citations: 2004 CriLJ 2989, II (2004) DMC 847
Bench: H S Prasad
Arjun Ram vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13/5/2004
ORDER
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order
taking cognizance dated 1-2-2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 1451/2001 (T.R. No 1018/ 2002) under
Sections 498A/323/379 and 494, IPC.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the application are that the opposite party No. 2 Devanti Devi filed a
Complaint Case No. 1451/2001 stating therein that she was married with the petitioner in the year 1977 and
she lived in her sasural peacefully for two years and thereafter she lived with her husband-petitioner for three
years at different places on his posting and out of his wedlock, three daughters and one son were born and the
petitioner left opposite party No. 2 at his paternal house at Birni with her daughters. One of the daughters has
been married. It is further alleged that petitioner got married with one Purnima Devi in the year 1985 in
connivance with the other accused persons. Father-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant used to
torture her whenever she complained the petitioner. Petitioner used to give her Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per
month as maintenance, which is insufficient for her and her daughters. It is further alleged that in the month of
August she had gone to her naihar after locking her room and when she returned, she found her jewellery and
saries were missing and when she inquired about the same from her father-in-law and brother-in-law, then she
was informed that they had taken the articles. It is further alleged that the very next day, petitioner came with
Purnima Devi and drove her out from her sasural after assaulting her and since then the complainant-opposite
party No. 2 has been living in her naihar. The learned Court below after holding inquiry under Section 202,
Cr.P.C. took cognizance under the aforesaid Sections
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits (that) the instant com-plaint case was filed on
3-12-1991 as a counter-blast to the matrimonial case being Title (M) Suit N. 22/2001 filed by the petitioner on
5-6-2001 for seeking divorce from the complainant. It was further pointed out that according to the complaint
case, the opposite party No. 2 lived with the petitioner for few years after marriage in the year 1977 and that
after the birth of her second daughter in the year 1982 the relationship between the petitioner and
complainant-opposite party No. 2 became strained, as the opposite party No. 2 felt uncomfortable in living
with her in-laws. It is further pointed out that relationship of petitioner and O.P. No. 2 had became so tense
that both were not on talking terms with each other since 1983 and she developed illicit relationship with one
Birju Ram, who is cousin of the petitioner and thereafter opposite party No. 2 gave birth to a daughter in the
year 1991 due to extra-marital relationship. It is also pointed out that opposite party No. 2 had no grievance to
the second marriage of the petitioner with one Purnima Devi in the year 1985 and when a divorce case has
been filed against her, she has come out with all false and filthy allegations. In this connection, learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon 1997 (2) PLJR 60, wherein it has been held that when
complainant filed complaint after an abnormal delay against (sic) who are employees of State Bank of India,
from where complainant had taken a loan and there is nothing on record to show that soon after the
occurrence, case was not lodged, then such a prosecution appears to have been actuated by mala fide intention
and story in complaint case being absurd, the cognizance was quashed. The learned counsel while relying on
this case law submitted that opposite party No. 2 while filing complaint case alleged that torture on her was
started right from 1983 till 2000 but she has filed a case under those sections against the petitioner only after
petitioner filed a Title (M) Suit No. 22 of 2001 in the month of June, 2001 and notice was served on opposite
party No. 2 and soon before appearance in Title (M) Suit, she filed this complaint case on 3-12-2001 levelling
allegation of torture etc. and also of second marriage of petitioner with one Purnima Devi.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that learned Court below, after due
inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C., came to a finding and found prima facie case against the petitioner and,
therefore, the order does not require any interference.
5. On perusal of records and after hearing the submissions of the parties, it appears that cause of action in the
case bearing Complainant Case No. 1451/2001 filed by opposite party No. 2 was right from 1983 till 2000 but
no case was filed in the year 2000 and in the beginning of 2001, the complaint case was filed only after Title
(M) Suit No. 22 of 2001 was filed in June, 2001 and notice on the aforesaid case was issued on 3-12-2001.
The instant complaint case was filed with mala fide intention.
6. in the instant case, it appears that the criminal case has been filed, which is manifestly intended with mala
fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge. In this connection reliance may be placed upon AIR 1992 SC 604 ; (1992 Cri LJ 527).
7. It is clear that this complaint case was filed only after coming to know of the filing of the Title (M) Suit for
divorce and, therefore, it is actuated with mala fide intention.
8. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 1-2-2002 is
hereby quashed.
Arjun Ram vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13 May, 2004
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 17 October 2011
