How to quash 498a??
These days its quite an easy task for women to register an FIR by attributing allegations of cruelty and a case is registered and thereby the husband and his family members have to go harassment and torture. Now one remedy is available for them which can relieve them from all the harassment and torture and that is quashing of FIR under 482 CrPC. But this remedy is generally very sparingly and rarely exercised by the courts. Generally, allegations of cruelty are mentioned in the FIR and based on this FIR is lodged but sometimes police forget that in the cases of 498a general allegations of cruelty does not stand, the allegation must qualify either of the two parts as envisaged in section 498a.
Here are some of the valid grounds.
Vague allegation – 498a quashed
The case of 498a can be quashed when there are vague the allegations in the FIR. An FIR is a first document on which whole investigation and charge sheet is based.
An FIR is a bible for getting evidence and eventually to secure a conviction of an accused based on the evidence, therefore an FIR must contain all the material facts related to an offense. It also must contain all the specific ingredient needed for satisfying an offense and material through which investigation may proceed. if an FIR misses material facts then it is a vague FIR which can be quashed by invoking the jurisdiction of 482 CrPC. Image result for 498a quash Some believe that if an FIR satisfies the ingredients of an offence it is not the case for being fit for quashing but this proposition is untrue under the light of the judgement In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) the apex Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. so lack of evidence is another ground for quashing proceedings. An FIR containing quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct can be quashed even if the FIR constitutes and satisfy the ingredients of an offense. It is held in Vishalbhai Niranjanbhai Adatiya … vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 December 2015 It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, the rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
False allegations against relatives
Mukesh Rani V. State of Haryana, 2002 MLR 175=2002 (2)123= 2002 (1) RCR (Cr) 163= 2002 (1) CC Cases (HC) 48 (Pb. & Har.)
In the instant case respondent, No.2 is the husband of respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 is the sister of a husband of the complainant. In the FIR, it has not been specifically mentioned what dowry articles were entrusted to respondents 2 and 3 at the time of the marriage. If no article has been entrusted to respondents 2 and 3, then no case under section 406 is made out. It is also not the case of the complainant that respondents2 and 3 are residing with the husband of the complainant. The respondents have placed on record the documents showing that they are employed as teachers and are living separately in village Bamble from the complainant and her husband Satyadev. Even on the date when the alleged occurrence took place respondents were present in their school i.e. on 07.01.1994.
If on the face of the complaint it shows that complaint is false, the charge should not be framed. In the instant case, there is evidence that respondent No.3 who is the sister of the husband of the complainant was living separate with her husband-respondent No.2 in a different village and were employed as a teacher, the learned trial court has rightly discharged respondents 2 and 3.
For the reasons mentioned above, there is no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned orders passed by the learned courts below. Hence this petition is dismissed.
Quashing of false FIR against relatives is much easier