Harsh Vardhan Arora v. Smt Kavita Arora, 2002 MLR 528= 2002(2) RCR (Cr) 499 (Pb & Har.)
The Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 primarily to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. Basically it would depend on fact situation of each case which would enable the court after reading the complaint as a whole whether allegations made therein at their face value bring out the ingredients made therein at their face value bring out the ingredients of the offence or whether these do not constitute the offence for which cognizance was taken by the magistrate and in the later case the court would be justified in quashing the complaint.
In the present case the facts detailed in the complaint have been noticed above. Omnibus allegations had been made against all the accused in respect of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and beating given to her during the period she stayed in the matrimonial home. No specific date, month or year had been specified when these incidents had taken place. It cannot be ignored that every member of the family of the complainant’s husband has been implicated in this case. The allegations made are vague and general and for that reason no offence under Section 498-A, IPC is made out against the accused.
Mukesh Rani V. State of Haryana, 2002 MLR 175=2002 (2) Cr.CC 123= 2002 (1) RCR (Cr) 163= 2002 (1) CC Cases (HC) 48 (Pb. & Har.)
In the instant case respondent No.2 is the husband of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is the sister of husband of the complainant. In the FIR, it has not been specifically mentioned what dowry articles were entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 at the time of the marriage. If no article has been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3, then no case under section 406 is made out. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondents2 and 3 are residing with the husband of the complainant. The respondents have placed on record the documents showing that they are employed as teachers and are living separately in village Bamble from the complainant and her husband Satyadev. Even on the date when the alleged occurrence took place respondents were present in their school i.e. on 07.01.1994.
If on the face of the compliant it shows that complaint is false, charge should not be framed. In the instant case, there is evidence that respondent No.3 who is the sister of the husband of the complainant was living separate with her husband-respondent No.2 in a different village and were employed as teacher, the learned trial court has rightly discharged respondents 2 and 3.
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Anu Gill V. State and Anr., 2001 MLR 467 = 2001 (59) DRJ 417 (Delhi)
To constitute the offence under section 406, IPC there must be clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or domain over it, by the complainant, that the accused has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same to his own use or that accused refused to return back the articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. Perusal of the allegations appearing against the petitioner do not show that articles of Istridhan were even entrusted to her. In misappropriation or conversion to her use does not arise. Thus the most vital ingredient to constitute the offence under section 406, IPC is missing. In view of the above, no case under section 406, IPC is spelt out against the petitioner.
After her marriage complainant- respondent No.2 started living with her husband who never posted in Delhi. Admittedly petitioner was employed in Ministry of Finance at the time of marriage of the complainant. The petitioner was married in 1997 and since then she is living in her own matrimonial home. Allegations made by the complainant that her husband used to misbehave with her, at the behest of the petitioner are totally vague, inherently improbable and unworthy of credence. From these allegations even a strong suspicion cannot be interfered. Even the statements recorded during investigation do not furnish the requisite material so as to make out the prima faciecase under section 498-A, IPC against the petitioner.
Raj Pal Singh & Ors. V. State of Haryana, 2000 MLR 594= 2000(3) Rec. C.R. 135 (Pb. & Har.)
So far as cruelty by the complainant is concerned, the complaint is once again vague and general. The complainant has stated that from the beginning, all the accused especially accused No.1 (her husband) treated her cruelly. There is no allegation against any of the petitioners. The further allegation that few days after the marriage the accused persons started torturing her is also vague and without details. Similarly the allegation that the other accused instigated her husband is also vague and general without being specific. Though the complainant has stated that five months after the birth of male child, she was turned out of the matrimonial home, she has not specified as to who has done so. Her allegation that in July, 1997, her husband at the instance of the other accused severely beat her and turned her out of the matrimonial home is again the allegations regarding the entrustment of the dowry articles and the allegations regarding misappropriation are also not in this petition is that the petitioners are living separately while the complainant and her husband lived separately in separate house and, therefore, there was no occasion for these petitioners to either demand dowry or misappropriate it or to treat the complainant cruelly as alleged by her. But the complainant has not chosen to appear and deny the allegation that herself and separately in a separate house. This is also an additional factor which has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the view that the reading of the F.I.R. does not disclose any ground for proceeding against the petitioners for any of the offences alleged in the F.I.R. Therefore, the F.I.R. has to be quashed on this ground only.
Neera Singh v. The state (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2007 MLR 335= 2007 (2) LRC 75= 2007 (1) DMC 345=2007 (138) DLT 152=2007 (2) JCC 906 Delhi
Considering the allegations made by the complainant in her statement to the police and in the FIR, the learned ASJ observed that the ingredients under section 498-A of the IPC were not made out against the minor girls Kamlesh and Mamta. The remarks as alleged were made by the two girls. There were no allegations of either physical or mental torture by these two girls and, therefore, he considered the no case was made out against the two minor girls under section 498-A of the IPC.
The cruelty perpetuated on a women may be physical or mental. However, not doing household work by minor girls either or their own or at the instance of their mother, as alleged, cannot be stated to be cruelty to the women or the utterances as assigned to these two minor girls that she had not brought any gold item for them would amount to harassment being made by minor girls for the purpose of coercing her or her relatives to meet the unlawful demands.
Now-a-days it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against every member of the family of the husband, involving everybody under section 498-A and 406 of the IPC by making one or the other allegations. Hence, it has become very necessary for the courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute the offence and meet the requirements of law at least prima facie. The learned ASJ scrutinized the entire FIR and the statement of the complaiant and thereafter observed that no case was made out against these two minor girls. I have also gone through the record and find that except above allegations made by the complainant, no other role was assigned to these two minor girls (respondents).