LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

I will fight (XYZ)     11 November 2012

Don't implicate family members in dowry case just on fir: sc

My dear friends,

I am undergoing a false allegation on 498A from my wife and her parents and siblings. This complained was lodged by them against me and my old aged parents after a year of my filing against her for Divorce in Family court followed by DV. As understood clearly that it is an act of vengeance from theri side to harras us by all means.

I have applied for Quashing it in High court and the matter has to be judged after Deepawali vacation in court.

I just came across an article in the link below in Cotober 2012 end



Can anyone please help me get the legal document of this?


Moreover, if someone has any other documents which can be helpful to me to get this false 498A case framed by them on me and my parents, quashed in High court.


Please note, a month before the time of my application for divorce I had left the house where me my wife and my daughter with age almost 19 and we all never stayed with my parent at any time, neither we had any contacts or any sort of relation with my parent. My married life is going to complete 20 years in January 2013.


I badly need help.


God Bless you freinds


 5 Replies

satish (SNCO)     11 November 2012

pls follow the link for subject verdict





Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     11 November 2012

Is your daughter 19 years of age? If so what is her stand in the dispute between her parents?

rajiv rajan (rr)     11 November 2012

kindly go through the complete judgement

Attached File : 843799445 2012 stpl(web) 606 sc.pdf downloaded: 267 times

I will fight (XYZ)     11 November 2012

@ Satish: I get this error in that link. https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis3.aspx

Let me check that again later. Please see if you can get in form of document for me. I will appreciate it. Thank you.

@ Dr. Ramani: My daughter is 18 complete and will complete 19 in coming January (2013).

@ Rajiv: Thanks my dear friend. I think this will help me a lot


Adv.R.P.Chugh (Advocate/Legal Consultant (rpchughadvocatesupremecourt@hotmail.com))     11 November 2012

Dear Querist, 

Quashing of FIR is a complicated matter and rarely done. The High Court has the power to quash FIR in case it is an abuse of the process of law, or when it discloses no offence or is inherently improbably. In this regard Decisions such as Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana (1992) may be referred to. 

In dowry offences - the recent decision of Geeta Mehrotra shall be of great help to you, following are the links to the same. 

1. https://advocatebharatchugh.wodpress.com/2012/10/23/geeta-mehrotra-vs-state-supreme-court-quashes-498a-fir-on-ground-casual-wholesale-reference-to-in-laws-wont-justify-dowry-case/

2. the Complete Judgment here https://www.stpl-india.in/SCJFiles/2012_STPL(Web)_606_SC.pdf

Apart from this the following decisions might help as you as well 

In G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who  could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their  being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” 



·       Y.Abraham Ajith V. Inspector of Police [(2004) SCC (Cri.) 2134]. In this case, the Madras High Court refused to interfere under Section 482 CrPC when the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned to take cognizance of the offence was raised. This Court did not endorse the approach of the High Court for not recording the finding on the question of jurisdiction. On reading the allegations in the complaint, the Court came to the conclusion that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai and therefore the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai could not have taken cognizance and issued summons. On this ground, the criminal proceedings were quashed and the complaint was directed to be returned to the respondent who was given liberty to file the same in an appropriate court. That was also a case of complaint for an offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC filed by the wife against the appellant therein.

·       Delhi High Court in Niraj Trivedi v. State of Bihar [ WP’s - Crl. ] 235 & 415/04 Decided on 4.1.08, The Delhi High Court categorically held “Crime cannot be registered on the basis of residence of the complainant, or the effect of the crime…..but only at the place of crime”. Justice S.N Dhingra directed the Patna Police to transfer the FIR No. 0188/02 PS Digh, Patna, Bihar to their counterpart in Delhi. As no part of the alleged offence was committed in Patna and all allegations of atrocity were restricted to Delhi.

*       Delhi High Court in Rajesh Dhingra & Ors./State of Rajasthan WP (Crl.) No.976/03 Quashed on.22.10.07 FIR No.98/2003 U/s.498 AIPC of PS. Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate Ajmer(Rajasthan). The Court held that no part of the offence as alleged in FIR registered at Police Station Ajmer had been committed within the jurisdiction of PS Mahila Thana Alwar Gate, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The wife has misused the process of law. FIR Quashed.


* Delhi High Court in  Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Another      vs. State and Another HON'BLE  JUSTICE  S.N. DHINGRA DHC - 26/02/2007 CASE NO: Crl.M.C. 1216-17 of 2006, held that the Courts have been allowing quashing of proceedings under Section 498A /406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 because in such cases the FIRs are result of matrimonial discord and more often the effort of the Court is that either the parties should settle for a compromise for living together or they should part their company peacefully, so that, there is peace and amity in the society. In cases resulting from matrimonial discord, the Court is not dealing with criminal but dealing with broken marriages and broken homes where resort is more often made to Sections 498A/406 Indian Penal Code.



Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, JT 2005(6) 26 observed as : “The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contented by the petitioner that many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.


In Preeti Gupta & Anr. V. State of Jharkhand - AIR 2010 SC 3363  - their lordships Hon’ble J. DALVEER BHANDARI & K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ while directing the Law Commission to have a relook at the provisions, went on to hold : “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern


32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.


33.…The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living     in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.


34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 


These are the cases cited by me in a case that I fought myself. 


Hope this Helps !

Bharat Chugh

Advocate Supreme Court of India



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register