MODEL RELEASED. Domestic violence. Silhouette of a woman protecting herself from a blow from her partner by holding her arms in front of her face.

This article is written by Soma-mohanty of KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar. In this article, she has mentioned about essentials, amendments, exceptions and case laws of Section 498A of IPC

498A IPC Definition

In the early 1980s, it was seen that women were suppressed, exploited and subjected to cruelty. As there were no laws subjected to cruelty towards women, it gave wings to the society. Every disease requires medication for recovery, and finally, the medication for cruelty towards the recessive sex in the society was found as “ Feminist Movement”. It led to the enactment of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (46 of 1983)  which amended:

  •  The Indian Penal Code, 1860
  •  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  •  The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 
  •  The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

These amendments were the pillars of safeguard for women by insertion of S.498A in 1983.

But it has been seen that this provision has been misused, in case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others[1] the constitutional validity of S. 498A was questioned. It was subjected to harassment and mental trauma suffered by the husband and his relatives due to the instances where the complaints are not bonafide and have been filed with an oblique motive. But this provision is for people to get justice and it can’t be unconstitutional and at the same time, it doesn’t provide a license to unscrupulous persons. So it’s the duty of the law-makers to look into the matter so that the rights of both parties are protected and the culprit is being punished.

498A IPC Jurisdiction

  • The Supreme Court on 9th April 2019 delivered the judgment that a woman can file a case against her husband or in-laws subjected to dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC at any place she is sheltered. 
  • But the trail is to be taken place under the jurisdiction of the court where the crime has taken place.

498A IPC Punishment

  • shall be pun­ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or
  • shall also be liable to fine. 
  • Or the person can be convicted of both imprisonment as well as fine

498A IPC Bailable or Not

  • The offense under this Section of IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offense.
  •  In the case of  Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, it was held by the Court that arrest brings shame, diminishes freedom and leaves mental wounds forever. It also stated that police had no furnished ideas its lesson which is implied and personified in the Criminal Procedure Code [2] Taking it into sight,the Court, drew a distinction between the power to arrest and justification for the exercise of it. Section 41 lays down the provision when police may arrest without warrant. 

According to the latest amendment,  the situations where police can arrest without a warrant are as follows:

(1) There is no requirement of an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, any police officer can arrest any person:

  • Any person who commits a cognizable offense, in the presence of a police officer
  • When a reasonable complaint had been raised against any person or the information collected is sufficient, or suspicion of a cognizable offense performed has been raised which is punishable with a term of imprisonment for less than seven years and it might extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the conditions stated are satisfied:
  •  If the facts of the complaint, information, or suspicion are sufficient for the police officer  to believe that the said offense has been committed by the person
  • When the police officer is satisfied on the ground that such arrest is necessary:
  • for prevention of such person from committing the offense any further 
  • the investigation of the offense to be proper and accurate 
  • prohibition of the person from washing off the evidence of the offense or tampering with evidence
  •  The person should be prohibited from making any incentive, threat or promise to any person familiar with the facts of the case so as to prevent him from disclosing such facts before the Court or to the police officer
  • The presence of the person who is not arrested till in the Court is required whenever summoned and the date can not be ensured, and recording while making such arrest shall be recorded by the police and the reasons for writing should be specified. In case the arrest of the person is not required according to the provisions under this following, then the reason should be specified, why the arrest was not done in the form of writing.

 A situation where a police officer has reasonable reason to believe on the basis of the information that the offense committed is a cognizable offense in nature and punishment of it is may extend more than seven years, with or without fine and even death sentence can be pronounced and such person has committed the offense stated.

  •  Under this code or by the order given by the state government , any person who has been ?
  •  If any person is found of having possession of anything, which is suspected to be stolen property under reasonable ground and the person who is suspected of having committed an offense with an association to such thing under reasonable circumstances.
  • If any person causes hindrance in the way of a police officer while he is executing his duty or any person who has fled or attempts to flee.
  •  When a person is reasonably suspected of being truant from any of the Armed Forces of the Union, or
  • If the act is done at any place out of  India but if committed in India, would have been considered as an offense, when there has been a reasonable
  • A person who is a released prisoner and commits a breach of any rules made under sub-section (5) of section 356
  •  A person for whose arrest any summons has been made it may be written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the summons specifies the arrest of a person and the offence or any other cause which would lead to the arrest to be made and it permits to arrest the person lawfully without a warrant by the officer who issued the summons. 

(2) If any person who is not concerned in a non-cognizable offense or against whom a complaint has been filed or strong information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists he has been concerned, shall be arrested exception provided i.e it may be under a warrant or order of a Judicial Magistrate.

498A IPC Anticipatory Bail

The rising misuse of section 498A under 406, has caused alarm in the eyes of the Supreme Court. The false accusation leads to prosecution against the family members and thus hampering their reputation in society.

Thus anticipatory bail is provided under these circumstances:

  1. All the ornaments of the complainant in possession of her husband such as gold or silver ornaments should be returned back. And the accused has to deposit a sum of money, in the name of the complainant.[3]
  2. The petitioner is bound to join the investigation, when called upon and should not threaten the witnesses.[4]
  3. If the accused agrees to pay the maintenance amount to the complainant.[5]
  4. If the affair filled is indistinct. The complaint given is false in nature and the restrainment of things as dowry is vague.[6]

Cruelty

  • The term cruelty has not yet been defined in the statute, knowingly. It has been done to give freedom to the judges to decide the case according to the situation and changing social and moral values.
  • “Cruelty” can be both physical as well as mental cruelty.[7]
  • Factors that amount to cruelty is always a question of fact.
  • “Cruelty” in this section does not have a justified meaning because it is subjected to provide security to women from the evil and to ensure she lives with dignity in her matrimonial place.[8]
  • Cruelty is one of the essentials required to constitute offence under 498A of IPC. it should be shown that the actual amount of cruelty which the women was subject to is enough to build the offence under this section.

Classification of offense 

  • Offense under section 498A is cognizable which means that the police have the power to arrest without warrant or any other law according to the circumstances.
  • Its is non-bailable in nature which means that only the court has the power to grant bail.

Who may file the complaint

  • By the aggrieved wife or 
  • By her father, mother, brother, sister
  • When the court grants leave, to any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.

Husband

The word “husband” means a person who enters into a marital relationship that is legal in the eyes of law and under the feigned status of husband subjects the woman to cruelty which falls under Section 498-A. There is no prohibition that defines the word “husband”, in circumstances where persons who contract marriages avowed and cohabit with such woman, in the exercise of their role as “husband” is not a ground to be excluded from the purview of section 498A of  IPC.[9]

Second Wife

  •  In the judgment given by the Supreme Court, it was held that a complaint under Section 498A of IPC can be filed even by the second wife.  
  • When the former marriage of a person is hidden to a woman with whom second marriage is contracted, then she would be entitled to complain against her husband under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC
  • A. Subash Babu vs. State of A.P. and Ors.[10]

Women in live in relationship

A woman in a live-in relationship can’t file a complaint under this section.[11]

Cognizance by court

Under section 198A of CrPC, the court is bound not to take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of IPC.

Except in cases where the police report is filed by the aggrieved wife or by her father, mother ,brother, sister or with the leave of the court, by any person related to her by blood ,marriage or adoption.

Cruelty and harassment

  • Relative of husband

-It is the essential ingredient to prove the offense under this section. The word “relative” has not been defined by taking reference of the judgments. It is seen that “relatives” means father, mother, sister, brother of the husband to be prosecuted under this section. 

-Here relative means people who are connected by blood, marriage or adoption.

-It is the essential ingredient to prove the offense under this section[12]

  • Past events of cruelty

-In the case of Kaliyaperumal and Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, it was seen that “soon before” was essential to constitute the offense under cruelty.

-It is necessary to show that she was subjected to cruelty soon before the incident, to prove it

-The period under “soon before” is to be determined by the court under the circumstances of the incident and the facts.

Section 498A and dowry demand

When a woman is subjected to harassment by her in-laws because of  the fact that she was not able to fulfill the demand of money or property made by her in-laws or husband, then her husband or in-laws would be convicted under the Section 498A of IPC . This section deals with harassment subjected to demand of dowry.

  • Inder Raj Malik v Sunita malik

-In this case, the judgment was delivered by the Delhi High Court.

-It clearly justified that a person can be convicted of both section 498A of IPC as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition and the situation of double jeopardy is not being created under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

  • Vijender Sharma v state 

-The learned ASJ stated that as there were attempts to set the complainant on fire and this was the second time, anticipatory bail was requested.

-Thus, the plea was rejected.

-But as the accused was ready to reconcile and return the possessions of the complainant and also had deposited the specified sum of money. 

-But the complainant never showed up in the proceedings.

-Thus on this ground, anticipatory bail was granted

  • Dr Sunil Kumar v state

-The controversy arose only after the expiry of the period of more than 6 years from the date of marriage.

-The reason for the dispute between the parties was probably due to the suspicion that the deceased had an illicit relationship.

– There was no demand of dowry and ill-treatment earlier.

– It was very vague that after such a long period of time the appellants suddenly started demanding and ill-treating the deceased to the extent that she did commit suicide.

– Thus, the allegations remained unnatural and improbable.

Section 498A and protection of women from Domestic Violence Act,2005

  • It is seen that the number of cases of women being subjected to harassment or cruelty by her husband or in-laws are increasing, due to which the trials are delayed. So in this situation where the case status is pending under Section 498A of IPC, before the Criminal Court and the  allegation made is not vague, then the appellant can seek relief  under Sections 18,19, 20, 21, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2015 [13]
  • The Domestic Violence Act, 2015, aims to protect women from domestic violence by providing remedy and Section 498A of IPC aims to protect the woman from the harassment and cruelty that she is subjected to by her in-laws. Thus, these two provisions provide remedies for women from violence. They only difference between the Domestic Violence Act, 2015 and Section 498A of IPC is that Section 498A of IPC provides criminal prosecution as a remedy and the Domestic Violence Act, 2015 provides civil suits as remedy.
  • And they even can seek interim relief under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2015

498A IPC Divorce 

  • If the complaint under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 is filed after a long period of time from the divorce date, then it can’t be considered.
  • In the case of Mohammad Miyan v State of UP, it was seen that the wife had filed FIR against her husband and his relatives under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. The complainant had stated the fact that she has been divorced for more than 4years.
  • And the proceeding was quashed.

498A IPC Misuse

  • Every law is inserted to cure suffering and to check if people are subjected to social evil. But we often misuse the laws, which amounts to the constitutional validity. This section was inserted so that a woman can live with dignity in her matrimonial place. But some of them file fake affair to put their in-laws in trouble. It is even seen that the judges start assuming the accused to be criminal before the starting of the proceedings. This happens due to certain environmental circumstances as well as personal experience. They put themselves in the situation while giving the verdict. In society as women are suffering a lot, everyone starts believing them and often they misuse the privileges. In recent cases it is seen that the provisions under Section 498A are being misused.
  • In Sushil Kumar v Union of India & Ors, it was seen that

-The complaint was filed with the intention to harass in-laws.

-As this offense has been made non-bailable, the families are put into trouble by the police as well as the agencies to avail of anticipatory bail.

-The proceedings always start with the presumption that the accused is guilty.

-Such acts are causing legal terrorism.

-But this doesn’t amount to the questioning of the constitutional validity of law because of a mere abuse of a statutory provision.

-Moreover presumption shall be done until the contrary argument is proved.

-Thus the contention was raised to formulate “guidelines” to protect the innocent people.

IPC 498A Misuse Punishment

In Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar [14] judgment that was delivered was to make provision to ensure that the police officers do not arrest the accused, without any strong proof and Magistrates do not detain them casually. The following provisions are:

  • All the State Governments were ordered to instruct the police officers not to arrest the accused immediately. They are directed to go through the parameters of the situation and think about what should be done and proceed accordingly. 
  • A checklist containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1) (b) (ii) is to be provided to the police officers.
  • Before forwarding the accused to the Magistrate, the police officers are required to forward the checklist that is filled and also justify the reasons as well as necessities that demanded an arrest in the situation.
  • Then the Magistrate is required to go through the furnished report of police officers. He has to state that he is satisfied with the following statements and it authorizes detention.
  • In case a situation arises where the police officers did not arrest the accused within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case, then the report should be forwarded by the Superintendent of the Police of the District to the Magistrate for the purpose of reasons to be recorded in form of writing.
  •  The accused has to appear before the court within two weeks from the date of institution of the case under Section 41A of CrPC but it may be extended by the Superintendent of the Police of the District to the Magistrate if the record writing is in process.
  • If the following guidelines are not being followed by the police officer then departmental action is to be taken against him and he would be liable to be punished for contempt of court that would be instituted before High Court with territorial jurisdiction into consideration.
  • If the  Judicial Magistrate directs detention without recording reasons then he would be subjected to departmental action by the High Court with territorial jurisdiction into consideration.

In Rajesh Kumar v State of UP [15] in the case, the judgment was based on directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498A.It further modified the guidelines in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India[16]. The followings are:

  • The District Legal Services Authorities of every district are directed to constitute one or more Family Welfare Committees. It shall comprise of three members.
  • The working of these committees is to be reviewed at least once a year by the chairman of the committee that is the District and Session Judge.
  • The members of the committee are to inspect the complaints filed under Section 498A of IPC, received by the police officers or Magistrate. The members can communicate with the parties and it can be any mode of communication.
  • These members are not allowed to be witnesses.
  • The report by the members is to be submitted to the authority under whom it was filed within the span of one month from the date the complaint was filed.
  • The committee is free to give their opinion regarding it.
  • No arrest is to be done until the report is submitted by the committee.
  • Training is to be provided by the Legal Services Authority to the members of the committee.
  • The members of the committee are subjected to the honorarium.
  • A designated officer is to be appointed to investigate complaints under Section 498A of IPC.
  • Disposition of the proceedings including the closure of the criminal case relating to matrimonial case incase of settlement is done. It should be opened to the District and Session Judge or any other competent authority.
  • The case can also be decided on the same day when the bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the public prosecutor.
  • Impounding of passports or insurance of Red Corner Notice should not be a notice when the person is not residing in India.
  • These provisions are not applicable to the offenses involving corporeal physical injury or death.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/top-5-supreme-court-judgment-on-misuse-of-498A/

498A/406 of IPC

  • How to seek bail in false 498A/406 ipc

Because of the increasing vague complaints by women to hamper the mental state of her in-laws as well as husband, the court takes a step back before pronouncing the judgment to check if the innocent is not been punished. Thus, bail is granted on the principle of “ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negta”, which means that one is considered innocent unless proven to be guilty.

  • Grounds considered by court while granting the bail in recent judgments 

  • Parag Bansal & Ors. vs State.

-In this case, it was seen that the complainant was a well educated and professional advocate, thus being aware of all the provisions she furnished her allegation according to it.

-But all the statements were found to be false.

-It was even seen that the accused has always appeared in court on being called. And was thus granted bail

  •  Nitesh Arora vs State Govt. Of N.C.T.Delhi 

In this case, the petitioner seeks permission to travel to the USA for the assignment. And his visa was about to expire and it would get renewed once he reaches the USA.

-Thus he was granted anticipatory bail and was asked to appear before the court after he reaches India.

Chances of getting Anticipatory bail in case of 498A/406 

 Pavitra Uraon & Ors v State of Chattisgarh

-In this case, it was seen that the complaint was not happy in her marital life and was not wanting to reside with her husband and his parents.

-Thus allegation made by her was false.

-The complaint filed was found to be vague.

-There was no prima facie in the complaint under  Section 498A of IPC.

-Thus under these circumstances, he has provided bail.

498A IPC Compoundable or Not

  • The offense under Section 498A being very serious in nature is not compoundable because it is not included under Section 320 of CrPC. Though it has been clearly mentioned that it is not compoundable, some High Courts have provided an exception, in cases where the parties have reconciled and if husband and wife have started staying together.Then the court can use its power under Section 482 of CrPC to make it compoundable.
  • But the Bombay High Court raised the question of how can a non-compoundable under Section 320 of considered as compoundable.[17]
  • In the case of BS Joshi v State of Haryana[18], the Supreme Court held that when both the parties approach the court to quash the criminal proceedings filed under Section 498A of IPC, then the High Court can consider it as compoundable and quash the proceeding.

498A IPC Recent Judgements 

  • Rashmi Chopra v State of UP

FACTS:

-In this case, it was seen that Nayan Chopra, son of Rashmi Chopra and Rajesh Chopra got married to Vanshika Bobal, daughter of the respondent. Then they moved to the USA, and after two years of marriage, Nayan filed for divorce in the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan, USA.

-Rashmi’s father went to meet Nayan’s father, where he was demanding a huge sum of money and after that Rashmi’s father was subjected to harsh treatment by him with two more people

-There was a demand for a huge sum of money.

-Thus allegations against all the appellants were made under Section 498A and Sections 3 & 4of Dowry Prohibition Act.

-Then they were sent to Mediation Centre running under the District Legal Services Authority for counseling by the Magistrate. But it did not work.

– An application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed in the High Court praying for quashing the complaint and proceedings by the appellant

-The High Court refused to hear it as there was no mediation.

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANTS:

-According to arguments both of them were divorced before the date of summon

-The prima facie of the complaint does not show any offense under Section 498A of IPC.

-The complaint was not filed by the victim.3

Judgment

– There is no provision that when a woman is subjected to cruelty,  then the complaint has to be filed necessarily by the woman who is concerned.

– The complaint that was filed by the respondent, who was the father of Vanshika the victim cannot be considered to be maintainable on the ground provided. 

– Thus, the contention submitted on behalf of the counsel for the appellant that complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable.

-Thus, the accused was to be convicted under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. against Rajesh Chopra who was the accused.

VIEW:

  • According to me, the judgment delivered is rationalized.
  • As they were divorced, there was no existence of the marriage, which is an essential element of section 498A of IPC.
  • Thus the victim can not be convicted under this section.
  • In this judgment, the High Court was correct rejecting the plea under Section 482 of CrPC.
  • As per the Supreme Court, the offense can be compoundable only when there is mediation. But in this case, there was no mediation between the two parties.

Social action forum for Manav Adhikar v UOI

  • Case no. : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015
  • Petitioner: Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another                          
  • Respondent: Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others
  • Judgment date: 14th September, 2018
  • Bench: Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice A.M Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y Chandrachud

FACTS

  • Soliciting directions to the codefendant, the petition under Art 32 of the Constitution of India was filed so that there would be uniform guidelines in the processing. Proper steps should be taken to go through the incidents if the FIR is filed in the state’s procedure. And if the appointed committees are looking into the matter effectively. Matters including their prevention, investigation, prosecution, and rehabilitation of the victims and their children at the Central, State and District levels are well organized.
  • For easy lodge of FIR under Section 498A of IPC by the women subjected to cruelty, prayer was made to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents.
  • For that there should be a uniform policy of registration of FIR under Section 498A IPC in association with the law of the land.
  • The main motive behind this petition was to protect the social purpose behind Sec 498-A which was being exploited by the provisions of various qualifications and restrictions suggested by various courts including the decisions in recent cases . The Supreme Court has issued directions to prevent the misuse of Sec 498-A by the malice intention of women. Thus this matters require investigation to check the legitimacy of the complaint. After the judgement in Rajesh sharma v state of UP new guidelines were inserted which led to the formation of Family Welfare Committees to look into complaint filed under Sec 498-A. According to the direction of court and arrest shall be directed unless the Committee’s report has been issued. 
  • The District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer has to be informed of any settlement made by both the parties to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute relating to matrimonial discord.

Arguments by the petitioners

  • The motive and objectives behind this Section 498A of IPC are being exploited.
  • There are no uniform rules and regulations to review the case.
  • There have been facts stating that the provision under Section 498A of IPC is being misused. But it’s not enough to prove the existence of the fake complaint. Thus it does not have the right to take away the basis.
  • The mechanisms that monitor the incidents are not working effectively.
  • That provision is to prevent women who make a false statement to put her in-laws in trouble
  • But those who are really victimized do not get the proper cure to it.

Arguments by the respondents

  • This Section has been used as a weapon rather than shield by the women.
  • Some women out of anger try to take revenge on their in-laws
  • This arrest provision allows the police and other organizations to put the accused into trouble.

Judgment

  • No court has the authority to direct the legislature to make any law.
  • It is not possible in the part of the court to look into the workings of the committees appointed.
  • It can only look at the report submitted and through this, it can know if the report is false in nature.
  • The Court also observed that the duties of the Welfare Committees and further action are beyond the Code.
  • Thus the investigating officers were instructed to act according to the guidelines given in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P and others, D.K Basu v. State of W.B, Lalita Kumari and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another.
  • The changes in  guidelines in case of Rajesh Sharma was:

-Family Welfare Committees were established, was not in accordance with the statutory framework.

-Even if the settlement between the parties is done, still they can approach the High Court.

-Director-General of Police of each state are directed to ensure if the investigating officers are executing their work properly and training is provided to them.

-When bail is entertained in this case, the recovery of dowry materials should not be the only object to be considered.

View

  • According to the judgment of this case, there was the maintenance of balance between the original provision of Section 498A that is to provide justice to the accused and to check if the innocent is not being punished.

Rajesh Sharma v State of UP

  • Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2017
  • Petitioner: Rajesh Sharma & Ors.
  • Respondent: State of U.P. & Anr.
  • Date of judgment: 27th July 2017
  • Bench: Shri A.S. Nadkarni and Shri V.V. Giri

Fact 

-It was seen that the complaint has raised the issue that she was subjected to   and dowry demand.

-But the main contention raised was “to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute”.

Judgment

The District Legal Services Authorities of every district was directed to constitute one or more Family Welfare Committees. It shall comprise of three members.

  • The working of these committees is to be reviewed at least once a year by the chairman of the committee that is the District and Session Judge.
  • The members of the committee are to inspect the complaints filed under  Section 498A of IPC, received by the police officers or Magistrate. The members can communicate with the parties and it can be any mode of communication.
  • These members are not allowed to be witnesses.
  • The report by the members is to be submitted to the authority under whom it was filed within the span of one month from the date the complaint was filed.
  • The committee is free to give their opinion regarding it.
  • No arrest is to be done until the report is submitted by the committee.
  • Training is to be provided by the Legal Services Authority to the members of the committee.
  • The members of the committee are subjected to the honorarium.
  • A designated officer is to be appointed to investigate complaints under Section 498A of IPC.
  • Disposition of the proceedings including the closure of the criminal case relating to matrimonial case incase of settlement is done. It should be opened to the District and Session Judge or any other competent authority.
  • The case can also be decided on the same day when the bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the public prosecutor.
  • Impounding of passports or insurance of Red Corner Notice  shouldn’t be a notice , when the person is not residing in India.
  • These provisions are not applicable to the offenses involving corporeal physical injury or death.

View:

  • I would appreciate the judgment because this would protect the innocent from getting through the proceedings.

K.V. Prakash babu v state of Karnataka

  • Case no. : CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO(S). 1138-1139
  • Petitioner: K.V Prakash Babu
  • Respondent: State of Karnataka
  • Bench: CJI Deepak Mishra
  • Date of judgment: 22nd November 2016

Facts 

-The complainant was the father of the deceased.

-In this husband of the deceased had extra-marital affair due to which she was not able to tolerate it and ended up her life.

Judgment 

-Her husband can not be convicted under the Section 498A of IPC because it has no provision for adultery and it would be immoral 

-And she was going through mental cruelty on the basis of the rumor.

-Presumptions under this situation can’t construct cruelty.

View 

-To construct an offense under every section, one needs to prove the essentials of it.

-In this Section, adultery was performed which is considered to be cheating and it is not one of the essentials.

-And the deceased constructed the facts on the basis of rumors which would be considered as presumption.

Mohammad Miya v state of up

  • Case no. : Criminal Appeal no. 1048 of 2018
  • Petitioner: Mohammad Miya 
  • Respondent: State of UP
  • Date of judgment: 21st august, 2018

Facts

-The complainant filed that her mother-in-law caught hold of her hair and was subjected to cruelty

-She was subjected to a fist blow by her husband.

-Her sister-in-law was also involved with her mother-in-law in hair-pulling.

-She has also stated the fact that she has been divorced for more than four years.

Judgment:

-The allegation of her sister-in-law pulling her hair was found vague because both of them were present during the situation and it is not possible to consider, as it is not mentioned in particular.

View

-The judgment of the court is to be appreciated because judgment can not be delivered in accordance with the presumption.

Heera Lal v State of Rajasthan

  • Case no. : Criminal Appeal NO. 790/2017
  • Petitioner: Heera Lal
  • Respondent: State of Rajasthan
  • Date of judgment: 24th April, 2017
  • Bench:  Rohinton Fali Nariman, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar 

Facts

-In this case, the women who committed suicide was subjected to harassment by her in-laws

-She was exhausted when her husband’s parents came to stay along with her.

-So out of frustration because of the action of her in-laws she did pour kerosene on her and did burn herself.

Judgment

-As from all the facts presented it was seen that the harassment subjected to her was not that serious of an offense to constitute cruelty

View 

-The judgment was not appropriate. Cruelty is subjected to both physical as well as mental cruelty.

-In this case, she was tortured mentally and amounts to cruelty.

Reference

  1. (2005) 6 SCC 281 : AIR 2005 SC 3100
  2. (2014) 8 SCC 273
  3. https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/40984/40984_2014_Judgement_14-Sep-2018.pdf
  4. Vijendra Sharma v State
  5. Vijendra Sharma v State
  6. Dr. Sunil Kumar v State
  7. Pavitra Uraon And Ors. vs State of Chhattisgarh
  8. Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana AIR 1998 SC 958
  9. Krishan Lal v Union of India (1994) Cr LJ 3472 (P&H)
  10. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199)
  11.  (21.07.2011 – SC) : MANU/SC/0845/2011
  12. Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala,2017 SCC OnLine Ker 12064
  13. Ranjan Gopalrao Thorat v State of Maharashtra (2007) Cr LJ 3866 (Bom)
  14. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori MANU /SC/0861/2014
  15. AIR 2014 SC 2756
  16. MANU/SC/0909/2017
  17. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1501
  18. Neeta Sanjay Tagadev v Smt Vimal Sadashiv Tagade (19997) Cr LJ 3263(BOM)
  19. AIR 2003 SC 1386

Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this form…

LEAVE A REPLY