Gaurav Saini (Lawyer) 30 October 2014

Nri 498-a quashing

Brief details of case are:-

1. "H" staying in USA since 2006, got married with "W" in December 2012.

2. "S" ( sister of "H" ) also staying in USA since 2008. (She is married since 2008.)

3. "S" came to India for wedding of "H" for only 15 days, in December 2012 and never came to India after that, till date.

4. In January 2013, "H" goes back to USA, after his wedding.

5. In June 2013 "W" got registered FIR under 498-A, 406 IPC against "H" , "S", and parents of "H"

6. In March 2014, "H" and "S" got declared as Proclaimed Persons. (Being NRIs, they were not approachable). (Parents of H got bail in India. They are Indian residents and facing trial)

7. "S" filed quashing of FIR u/s 482 CrPC at High Court.

8. High Court questions the maintainability of the Quashing Petition. States that the proper procedure is not followed and quashing petition is not maintenable.

I am pursuing the above case:

Request the seniors to please guide:-

1. What is the probable reason of non-maintainabilty of said Quashing petition?

2. Is there any issue due to Proclaimation being issued against "S" (sister-in-law)?

3. What procedure must be followed?

4. Any other suggestions.

5. Any study material you suggest that I may refer to.

6. Any recent developments in SC or HCs with respect to this? (especially P& H HC)

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate) 30 October 2014

The court must have told the petitioner what was there in its mind when it raised the question of maintainability? My guess is as good as yours. The court must have insisted that the petitioners before it must have surrendered before the trial court as the order for proclaimed offender has been issued against them before approaching the H.C. under inherent jurisdiction. The H.C. might have shown its apprehensions, if it dismisses the quash petition, the petitioners instead of surrendering before the trial court and participate in trial may not at all enter into Indian Territory and may make the trial court proceedings redundant. So, the court wants their presence before the trial court if they want toget the benefit of the indian judicial system. It is my guess.