Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet in Dowry Harassment Case: ‘Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used as a Tool of Harassment’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the charge-sheet in a dowry harassment case, underscoring the misuse of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes. The judgment, pronounced on December 28, 2023, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, brought relief to the petitioners, accused under Sections 498-A, 342, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In this landmark judgment, the court observed, “Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool of harassment in matrimonial disputes.” This observation came in the backdrop of allegations deemed vague and unsubstantiated against the petitioners, primarily targeting the husband.

The case, CRMC No. 686/2017, involved the petitioner’s seeking the quashing of a charge-sheet alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. The court found that the allegations were not only vague but also lacked specific evidence against the petitioners, who were the in-laws and step-sons of the complainant.

Highlighting the misuse of Section 498-A IPC, the court referenced several landmark judgments, including “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar”, which noted the increase in matrimonial disputes and the potential misuse of the legal provisions intended to protect women from marital cruelty.

Justice Oswal, in his judgment, emphasized the importance of specific allegations and evidence in such cases to prevent the misuse of law. He remarked, “It is a matter of serious concern that a large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women.”

The decision was also based on the principles laid out in “Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.”, and other notable cases, where the Supreme Court of India had expressed concern over the indiscriminate use of Section 498-A IPC.

Date of Decision: Pronounced on 28.12.2023

Subash Chander Leekha VS Jammu.

 

Similar News