8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

MyNation KnowledgeBase
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS AND ARTICLES ON LAW

About

498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague

Allegations
Posted on 23/07/2017 by NEO Leave a comment

Start Download

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Tyagi
vs
The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2017

M.Cr.C. 2685 of 2017

Shri Ravi Vallabh Tripathi, Counsel for the applicants

Shri R.K. Awasthi, Counsel for the State/Respondent No.1
Shri Girraj Soni, Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard Finally.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been led for quashing the F.I.R. and further investigation
in crime No.28/2017 registered by Police Station Bhind Dehat, Distt. Bhind for o ence under Sections
498-A, 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The undisputed facts are that the applicant No.1 is younger brother-in-law (nsoj). Applicant No.2 is the
wife of applicant No.1 (nsojkuh).

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition, in short, are that the complainant Smt.
Nidhi Tyagi, lodged a F.I.R. on 17-1-2017, alleging that she was married to Neeraj Tyagi, about 5 years
back. Immediately after the marriage, her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law, the applicant No.1 and
the applicant No.2 started demanding Rs.1 lac and land and about 2 years back, she has been turned
out of her matrimonial house and she is living in her parents house.

The police, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, has registered the o ence against the
applicants and other in-laws of the complainant.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants, that the allegations of making demand of Rs.1 lac and
land immediately after the marriage of the complainant by the applicants is false because the applicant
No.2 got married to the applicant No.1 after the marriage of the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the
applicant No.2 was not even the member of the family of the in-laws of the complainant at the time of
the marriage of the complainant, therefore, the allegation of demand of Rs.1 lac and land from the
complainant, by the applicants, immediately after her marriage is false. It is further submitted that the
applicants are residing in Gujarat whereas the complainant and her husband are the resident of Bhind.
It is further submitted that the applicants have been falsely made accused only because the applicant
No.1 is the younger brother of the husband of the complainant, and the applicant no.2 is the wife of the
applicant No.1.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.1/State as well as the respondent No.2,
that the applicants had also demanded Rs.1 lac and land from the complainant and she was harassed

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 1/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

and treated with cruelty because of non-ful llment of their demand of Rs.1 lac and land, and the
investigation is still pending, therefore, the F.I.R. against the applicants may not be quashed as it is a well
established principle of law that the legitimate prosecution may not be sti ed at the initial stage only.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. True it is, that the investigation in the present case is pending
and the charge sheet has not been led. It is also equally well established principle of law that if the
allegations made in the F.I.R., prima facie make out a case, then the legitimate prosecution should not
be sti ed. However, the present case is that of o ence under Sections 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. The statements
of the complainant and her parents are important to nd out that whether they prima facie make out
an o ence or not. It is equally well known, that in such cases, in order to put additional pressure on the
husband, the near and dear relatives of the husband are also roped in.

READ MP HC: 498A FIR/Chargesheet Quash against Relatives for Absurd &
Vague Allegations

The Supreme Court in the case of Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav and others Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and another reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 850 has held as under :-

11. It is well settled that power under Section 482 CrPC should be sparingly exercised in rare cases.
As has been laid down by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
(1988) 1 SCC 692, that when a prosecution at the initial stage was asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the Court was as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima
facie establish the o ence. It was also for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which
appears in a particular case to consider whether it was expedient and in the interest of justice to permit
a prosecution to continue. This was so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique
purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and
therefore, no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the
Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even
though it may be at a preliminary stage. If the allegations made against the applicants are concerned, it
is clear that only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicants. The case of the
near and distant relatives of the husband stand on a di erent footing than that of the husband and
parents-in-law. In order to prosecute the other relatives, there has to be some speci c allegations
against them. General, vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as su cient material against
the other relatives of the husband who otherwise, does not have anything to do with the family a airs
of the complainant.

By relying on judgments passed by the Supreme Court in cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it is
submitted by the counsel for the applicants that there should be speci c and clear allegations against
the relatives of the husband and vague and omnibus allegations would not be su cient to compel
them to face the agony of trial. It is further submitted that there is an increasing tendency in the society
to over- implicate the near and dear relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the husband.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as under :

In the light of the evidence in the case w e find substance in the submission of the
learned counsel for the defence that Respondents 3 to 5 w ere roped in the case
only on the ground of being close relations of Respondent 2, the husband of the
deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-law s or the other relations cannot, in
all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dow ry. In cases w here such
accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband
are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dow ry
deaths. A tendency has, how ever, developed for roping in all relations of the in-
law s of the deceased w ives in the matters of dow ry deaths w hich, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real
culprits. In their overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum
people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 2/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

involving other relations w hich ultimately w eaken the case of the prosecution
even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.

The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693, has
held as under:-

READ Not all demands are Dowry Demands

8. While we do not nd any ground to interfere with the view taken by the courts below that the
deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-ful llment of dowry demand, we do nd
merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not
ruled out. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, this Court observed : (SCC p.
215, para 5) 5A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the
deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to a ect the case of
the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making e orts for involving
other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as
appears to have happened in the instant case. The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant
relatives without there being speci c material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family
members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless
there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any speci c role and material to support
such role.

9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15 SCC 415, it was observed : (SCC p. 419, para

1 4) 1 4. No doubt, some of the w itnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, w ho is the

father of the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the
deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that dow ry w as
demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his
w ife Sanjana Devi, but w e are of the opinion that it is possible that the names of
Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net w ide
as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been
observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar
[(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc. Hence, w e allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana
Devi and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court
insofar as it relates to them and w e direct that they be released forthw ith unless
required in connection w ith some other case.

******

11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of
demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time,
omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other
relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general
allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satis ed that harassment was also caused by all the
named members.

READ 498A misused for extortion - Husband, in-laws acquitted

If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Kansraj (Supra), Monju Roy (Supra), Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) and Preeti Gupta
(Supra), it would be clear that only vague and general allegations have been made against the
applicants. It is the speci c case of the applicants that they are residing at Gujarat whereas the
complainant and her husband are residing in Bhind. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondent
No.2. According to the F.I.R. and the case diary statement of the complainant, the applicants started
demanding Rs.1 lac and land immediately after the marriage, however, the applicant No. 2 was not even

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 3/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

married to the applicant No.1 at the time of the marriage of the complainant. When the applicant No.2
was not even the member of the family of the in-laws of the complainant, then how she can demand
Rs.1 lac and land from the complainant, and how she can harass the complainant.

If the allegations are considered, then it is clear that the applicant No.1 is the younger brother-in-law of
the complainant, whereas the applicant No. 2 is the wife of the applicant No.1. They are residing in
Gujarat and have no business to interfere with the family life of the complainant. There are no speci c
allegations against the applicants and only vague and omnibus allegations have been made which are
not su cient to compel the applicants to face prosecution. Thus, in the considered opinion of this
Court, unless and until, a speci c allegation is made against a near and dear distant relative of the
husband, he/she cannot be prosecuted for o ence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. In the present case also,
there is no speci c allegation against the applicants, so as to compel them to face the Trial.

Accordingly, the F.I.R. in crime No.28/2017 registered by Police Station Bhind Dehat, Distt. Bhind for
o ence under Sections 498-A, 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, qua the
applicants is hereby quashed.

This application succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB*

Like 16

No related posts.

34, 34 of I.P.C, 498a, mp hc, pankaj tyagi, quash, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., Section 482 CrPC, Sections
498-A, Shri Girraj Soni, Shri R.K. Awasthi, Shri Ravi Vallabh Tripathi
Judgments

MP HC: 498A FIR & CS Quash against Sister-in-Law SC: Delay in ling complaint/FIR a ground for acquittal
on vague allegations

Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Send your comment

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 4/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

FREE ADVICE
Custom Search
Dr.Dsouza on "how to kn.ow the quali cation
Search
of the 498a lady from University"
debbu25 on "how to kn.ow the quali cation of
Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE;
the 498a lady from University"
Search in Above link
Dr.Dsouza on "Land Mark Judgments - Father
of All Sitemaps"
Dr.Dsouza on "Judgement of Gujrat High
Court"
Mra Alok Ghosh on "Judgement of Gujrat High
Court"
test2016 on "DRAFT : Domestic violence Act
for Men"

STUDY REPORTS

All Law documents and Judgment copies

Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

Dowry Law Proposal.

Report on 498A.
Report on DVAct
Report on Indian Husbands.
eMpower Women by DiseMpowering Men
MyNation Proposal for Paternity Act
Study Report on Marital Rape
MISUSE OF ANTI-DOWRY LAWS IN MARITAL
DISPUTES

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 5/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

*T&C A pply

Replay

RECENT COMMENTS
Adv.S.S.Sayyed,Bombay H.C. on When
successive bail applications are maintainable?
MyNation on Indian Christian Womans Right
to Property
joe on Indian Christian Womans Right to
Property
Amresh Singh on DV Should be lled within 1
year SC
Kishor deshmukh on Name in suicide note is
not Abetment

MYNATION BLOG YOUR VIEWS

Solution to Indias All Problems Positive Parenting

FeminISM and eQuality What Have I Done to Deserve This?

Whom not to Marry BLACK Money and DEMONetisation

WiKiLeak : How to Make Money in India Remedies and Treatments for Vitiligo

Divided We Stand We are the World Sung by Various Artists

NEWS DOWRY LAW VICTIM

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 6/7
8/12/2017 498A FIR Quash against Younger Brother-in-Law on Omnibus & Vague Allegations | MyNation KnowledgeBase

SC Directs To Form Family Welfare Committee To Stitching

Examine 498a Misuse, No Arrests Before
Support My Ideas
Committees Report.
Alcoholic Family
2 Year old Charged for Molesting 35 year old Women
Oil Massage
Tumor on Marriage
She stopped breast feed; to save her Beauty.
Supreme Court xes alimony at 25 percent of a
mans salary as a Bench Mark

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases

than driving cars, UN report warns

Copyright 2017 MyNation KnowledgeBase Powered by WordPress Theme by SUPARI

http://mynation.net/docs/2685-2017/#sthash.ptzgLLXL.dpbs 7/7