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 FIR in Family Dispute: “To Avoid Patent Injustice and Ultimate Miscarriage of Justice”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of judicial prudence in familial disputes, the Karnataka High Court, led by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed an FIR against a father in a post-divorce visitation rights conflict. The decision, dated 20th December 2023, revolved around the FIR registered for offences under Sections 504, 506, and 448 of the IPC, following a complaint by the ex-wife alleging criminal trespass and intimidation by her former husband.

The case, CRIMINAL PETITION No.9997 OF 2022, spotlighted the complexities surrounding visitation rights and the misuse of criminal provisions in personal disputes. Justice Nagaprasanna, in his landmark judgment, emphasized the need for judicial intervention to prevent “patent injustice and ultimate miscarriage of justice.” The ruling noted the overreach of criminal law in a situation that primarily involved visitation rights agreed upon post-divorce.

The court meticulously analyzed the sequence of events leading to the registration of the FIR, observing that the petitioner’s intention was to exercise his court-sanctioned right to visit his daughter. Despite the rescheduling of the visit by the ex-wife, the petitioner’s efforts to see his daughter were seen in the light of a desperate father’s anxiety rather than criminal intent.

Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that the police had hastily registered the crime without delving into the underlying family dispute. The court’s decision to quash the FIR was based on a critical examination of the applicability of Sections 448, 504, and 506 of the IPC in the given familial context. The judgment also highlighted the potential for the misuse of legal processes in settling personal scores, a scenario that the court deemed necessary to guard against.

Date of Decision: 20th December 2023

ANUPAM VS THE STATE BY KOTHANUR PS

 

Similar News