Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

MP High Court Quashes FIR Against Mother-in-Law in Dowry Case, - Lack of Specific Allegations and Inordinate Delay in Filing Complaint

04 September 2024 11:25 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) filed against a mother-in-law, citing lack of specific allegations and the considerable delay in lodging the complaint. The case had been registered at the Mahila Thana Padav Police Station, District Gwalior, for offenses punishable under Sections 498(A), 506, and 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court pointed out that the solitary Incident mentioned in the FIR, where the mother-in-law asked for Rs. 5,000 to bless her daughter-in-law, could not be considered as cruelty under Section 498(A) of the IPC [Para 14].

The judgment also noted that the rest of the allegations were general in nature and didn’t specify any incident, conduct, or role of the mother-in-law that could be deemed as mental or physical harassment. The court raised concerns about the significant delay in filing the complaint, questioning its authenticity [Para 15].

The court Invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, stating that the FIR and all subsequent proceedings were an abuse of the legal process and therefore deserved to be quashed [Para 15-16].

The case stands disposed of, and the FIR, as it relates to the petitioner Reeta Parihar, has been quashed [Para 17].

The judgment follows the law laid down in the case of Chandralekha Vs. the state of Rajasthan (2013) and other precedents, strengthening the importance of specific allegations for charges related to dowry and mental harassment.

Legal experts say this ruling emphasizes the need for caution and thoroughness in the filing of such complaints to ensure justice is served for all parties involved.

Date of Decision: 01.09.2023

SMT. REETA PARIHAR vs  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News