Discharge from 498A Case Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Legal Advice

Discharge from 498A Case Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Legal Advice

by

The misuse of Section 498A as a weapon rather than a shield by the well educated wives/ daughter-in-laws/ sister-in-laws in this modern, striving for equality society is becoming a common issue these days. The present case deals with one of them. Here in this case the discharge application was dismissed by trial court and later challenged in High Court as Criminal Revision which was allowed since the charges levelled were disapproved.

Through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the rejection of application for discharge preferred by them under Sections 227/228 of Cr.P.C.. In Cr.R.No.447/2017, petitioners (husband and brother- in-law of respondent No.2-wife) also preferred revision against order dated 06.02.2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners in respect of offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC for Rahul Dubey and Section 498-A, 376/109 and 354/109 of IPC against Pradumn Dubey

Also read: WOMEN MISUSING DOWRY LAWS- HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Manoj Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. &

Pradumn Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.

The court here has taken criminal revision petitions taken into consideration simultaneously and are decided by the common order as both the petitions carry the same factual tenor and texture and subject matter is also same therefore,

FACTS OF THE CASE

  1. At High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
  2. Parties:
  • R.No.87/2017

            Petitioners: Manoj Dubey and Anr.; Respondents: State of M.P. and Anr.

  • R.No.447/2017

            Petitioners: Pradumn Dubey and Anr.; Respondents: State of M.P. and Anr.

  1. Decided on 12 May 2020.
  • On 01.05.2014 marriage was solemnized between Pradumn Dubey (son of present petitioners) i.e. petitioner No.1 in Cr.R.No.447/2017 and respondent No.2 Smt. Richa Bhargawa as per Hindu rites and rituals at Guna. Due to some domestic incompatibility, respondent No.2/wife started living at her parental home at Kolaras, District Shivpuri (M.P.) from 24.02.2015. The dispute between the couple could not be resolved, therefore, on alleged grounds of living adulterous life as well as cruelty committed by respondent No.2, then husband-Pradumn Dubey filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/wife on 05.04.2016.
  • In his petition, he levelled specific allegations about leading an adulterous life and prior to marriage, conceiving from some other male and later on aborted. Husband levelled a specific allegation against respondent No.2 of having a relationship with one, Ashutosh Pandey. As per allegations, she lived with Ashutosh Pandey at his village Nohrikala as his wife for sometime and after dispute with him, she came back to her parental home and thereafter, marriage with Pradumn Dubey (petitioner No.1 of Cr.R.447/2017) solemnized. Later on, this fact came to the knowledge of her husband through call details of her mobile as well as from other sources. All details of leading an adulterous life by respondent No.-2 were narrated in divorce petition. Respondent No.2 contested the case and led her part of evidence.

Also read: ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN 498A 406 IPC CASE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

  • After considering the rival submissions and evidence, Principal Judge, Family Court Guna vide judgment dated 06.09.2017 allowed the petition under Section 13( dissolution of a marriage when one party makes a default specified under the same section) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner-Pradumn Dubey and decree of divorce was issued and by way of divorce couple declared separate.
  • On 05.04.2016 divorce petition was filed and on 05.05.2016 wife caused her appearance in the Court and immediately thereafter, on 15.05.2016 she lodged FIR under Section 498-A( husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC and Section 3/4 (Penalty for giving/taking and demanding dowry) of Dowry Prohibition Act, showing the dates of alleged offence between 01.05.2014 i.e. date of marriage to 12.10.2015, the date from which she started living separately. In the said FIR, there is not even a whisper in respect of allegation of committing attempt to rape and outraging her modesty by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (Petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.447/2017).
  • On 23.06.2016, she lodged another FIR vide Crime No.327/2016 at Police Station GunaKotwali for the offence under Sections 376 (punishment for rape) and 511( punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment) of IPC against all the petitioners for committing the offence of attempt to rape and outraging her modesty. In the said FIR, period of incident shown to be from 05.06.2014 to 28.02.2015. Perusal of FIR indicates the date of event as 05.06.2014 at Haridwar and thereafter, one more incident of attempt to rape by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey around one year back from the date of FIR.

Also read: Acquittal in 498A Case

  • Investigation carried out and charge-sheet submitted. Trial Court framed the charges against all the petitioners (except petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.No.447/2017) in respect of Sections 498-A, 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (petitioner No.2 of Cr.R.447/2017) was saddled with Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354() of IPC .
  • Meanwhile, divorce petition filed by the husband-Pradumn Dubey was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017, in which this fact has been considered that respondent No.2 lodged a false FIR to the offence of attempt to rape to exert pressure over the petitioners.
  • Meanwhile on 26.09.2019 during the pendency of present petitions, first FIR lodged against all the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also resulted in acquittal of all the petitioners on merits and the said judgment dated 26.09.2019 is on record.
  • Through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the rejection of application for discharge preferred by them under Sections 227/228 of Cr.P.C.. In Cr.R.No.447/2017, petitioners (husband and brother- in-law of respondent No.2-wife) also preferred revision against order dated 06.02.2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners in respect of offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC for Rahul Dubey and Section 498-A, 376/109 and 354/109 of IPC against Pradumn Dubey.

Also read:Domestic Violence Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali FAQ’s

  1. The counsel on behalf of the petitioners argued that after filing of divorce petition by the husband as counter blast, respondent No.2 lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC without mentioning therein any allegations of attempt to rape whereas she filed the said FIR on 15.05.2016 and at that point of time, if subsequent FIR is seen then it is clear that she referred the incident dated 05.06.2014 and the incident is of one year thereafter. Therefore, she could have narrated the said allegations in her first FIR filed under Section 498-A of IPC. It appears that when she realized that she is not getting sufficient material to harass the present petitioners only on the basis of offence under Section 498-A of IPC then she resorted to another FIR including the offence under Sections 376 and 354 of IPC, which is clear abuse of process of law and she cannot be permitted to start litigation at her whims on flimsy pretext and harass the petitioner till eternity. He referred to the vagueness made by the prosecutrix in her written complaint, FIR and police statement/statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that although this is revision petition but since this Court exercises the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., also then scope of revision is not limited. He relied upon the case of Rajiv Thapar &Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 331. to submit that even in revisional jurisdiction if the injustice is caused then the same can be taken care of.
  2. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. Counsel for the complainant also raised the point regarding merits of the case and submitted that the trial Court would decide the case and allegations prima facie apparently exist and therefore, the same needs to be tried through leading evidence.

Also read: Bringing Past affairs in Marriage is Cruelty

  1. Issue: Whether or not the revision petition be allowed in the court and the petitioners get discharged of the charges pressed against them?
  2. Order: The Court freed the petitioners and discharging them from the charges under Sections 498-A and 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and petitioner Rahul Dubey for the offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC.

JUDGEMENTS CITED

  • The court referred to the case of Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration &Anr. 1996 (9) SCC 766. in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:-

“15.But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.”

Section 227 of Cr.P.C reads as: “Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution on this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

In the cumulative analysis and going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar &Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 331. and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is a case where interference would advance the cause of justice therefore, this Court intends to allow both the revisions filed by the petitioners. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any ground to proceed further in the litigation and trial Court erred in rejecting the application under Section 227/228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge as well as erred in framing charge as per impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (in Cr.R.No.87/2017) and order dated 06.02.2017 (in Cr.R.No.447/2017) and both the impugned orders are hereby set-aside and no case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

Also read :Quashing of FIR 498A 406 IPC High Court Chandigarh

CONCLUSION

The factual analysis of the case clearly indicated that the charges pressed by respondent No.2 on the petitioners were false and articulated, and the trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for discharge. The Court, thus, discharged the petitioners from all the charges pressed against them and set them free.

For case specific advice on criminal matters related to Police Complaint on cruelty, domestic violence and dowry, one may contact top/best expert criminal Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana.

This post is written by Mohit Phulera.

More on 99888-17966. 

Call Us