Skip to main content

Police Machinery Can’t Be Utilised To Hold Husband At Ransom


In AMRITPALSINGH MAHENDRASINGH KALER vs DALJITKAUR W/O. AMRITPALSINGH MAHENDRASINGH KALER, the respondent No.1 got married with the applicant No.1 herein on 27th November 2013. The marriage was solemnized at Delhi. The first informant left the matrimonial home on 5th December 2013, as according to her, she was being harassed and there was a demand of Rupees Ten lac. After leaving the matrimonial home on 5th December 2013, an F.I.R. was lodged at the concerned police station on 5th February 2014. Within two months thereafter, the police filed chargesheet for the offence enumerated above. The first informant has alleged that soon after marriage, the applicant No.1 – husband told her that he was not interested in the marriage and had married with the first informant only for the purpose of money. The allegations against the applicants Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the father­in­law and mother­in­law are that of instigating the husband.

The husband had approached the high court seeking to quash FIR filed against him by his wife for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 506(2) and 294B read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The High Court of Gujarat while quashing a case against the husband filed by his wife, was critical of using the police machinery for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends.

The court held that the case appears to be one of a serious maladjustment in the marital life. The wife, as usual, has levelled wild and reckless allegations of harassment and cruelty not only against the husband, but even against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. The allegations do not inspire any confidence worth the name. In my view, continuation of the criminal proceedings will be nothing, but an abuse of the process of law.

The judge while quashing the case against the husband, further observed that, if the court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of all close relatives of the husband, including the husband is with an oblique motive, then even if the FIR and the charge sheet disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the court, with a view to doing substantial justice, should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the police, as if the police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches the police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more