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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more