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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more