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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more