Judgments of 498a dischage under 239 crpc • State of assam Vs. Achit Ranjan Dey, 1989 Cri LJ 1117 at 1118 (Gau), Sessions Judge Vs. I R redid, 1972 Cri LJ 1485, Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Mysore, 1975 Cri LJ 335 (kant) • State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy , a three judge Bench of SC Court had observed that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a persons liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasized. • When offences not prima facia made out against accused person framing of charge not proper in Imtiaz Ahmed Vs State of m.P. , 1997 Cri LJ 1844 (MP) • Allegations has to be specific in Krishan Jeet singh Vs. State of Haryana, 11 (2003) DMC 127 (P & H) • General allegations are not sufficient to procure 498-A in Surajmal Barithia V. State of west Bengal 11 (2003) DMC 546 (Cal) (DB) • Vague allegations are not acceptable in sher Singh V. state of Punjab 11 (2003) DMC 192 (P & H) • Bhajan Lal Bhatia & ors. Vs. Sarita Neelam 2005 Vol I HLR 59 • Where evidence on record neither disclosed that there was cruelty on part o the accused which was of such a nature as was likely to drive victim to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or mental or physical health nor showed that she was harassed by accused with regard to any demand for additional dowry, section 498-A could not be attracted in such circumstances in Bomma Ilaiach Vs. State of U.P. , 2003 Cri LJ 2439 (AP) • Where there is no specific allegations in complaint, charge could not be proved in Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State of Haryana, II (2003) DMC 127 (P&H) • Conviction not sustainable in the absence of evidence of ‘torture’ or “harassment” in Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra Vs State, 2004 (13) AIC 253 (ori.) • Taunting is not Cruelty in Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand , 2003, Cri LJ 2759 (Del) : 2003 (3) Crime 100 • Dr. Sant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 11 (2003) DMC 232 (P & H) • Where there was allegation by wife against her husband but such allegations were not supported by any reliable evidence. Wife was prepared to live with her Husband. The accused was entitled for benefit of dobut. Lawrence Vs State of Kerala, 2002 Cri LJ 3458 (Ker.) • State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, • Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305, • State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, (1992)Supp. 1 SCC 222, • Roopan Deol Bajaj Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, • State of U.P. Vs. O.P.Sharma, 1996(1) ALD (Crl.) 823 (SC) = (1996) 7 SCC 705 • State of Maharashtra Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri, 1996(1) ALD (Crol.) 139 (SC) =(1996) 1 SCC 542 • Kumar Bhada, (1997 Rashmi Kumar Vs. Maheswh) 2 SCC 397 • Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 (1) ALD (Crl.) 760 (SC) = (1999(3) SCC 259 • Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999)8 SCC 728, • Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004(1) ALD (Crl.) 672 (SC) = (2004) 4 SCC 432, • A.V. Mohan Rao Vs. M. Kishan Rao, (2002) 6 SCC 174, • State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa, 2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 412 (SC) = 2002(3) SCC 89 • State of Orissa Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005)13 SCC 540 • Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors – Jul 19 2005 JT 2005 (6) SC 266 it was held that by misuse of the 498A provision a new LEGAL TERRORISM can be unleashed. • HIGH COURT OF DELHI in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 on 23.02.2007 in Smt. Neera Singh Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) and ORS held that “vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge”. • In R.P. Kapur. vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), SC Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash proceedings. 1. 1. Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance, e.g. want of sanction; 2. Where the allegation in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; 3. Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. • Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. [1988 [1] SCC 692], SC Court has reiterated the same principle and laid down that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. • Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Anr. [1985] 2 SCC 370 • State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan & Ors. [1988 [4] SCC 655] plese go through some landmark judgement
Posted on: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:26:30 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015