Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

No Specific Allegations for Harassment or Dowry: Karnataka High Court  Quashesd Proceedings Against Family Members U/S 498A IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court today quashed criminal proceedings against family members in a matrimonial dispute case, stating there were no specific allegations against them for harassment or dowry demands.

The judgment focused on the quashing of criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 9 under Sections 498A, 107, 114, 120B, 406, 425, 323, 504, 506, 509, 34 of IPC, citing a lack of specific allegations against them for physical or mental harassment or dowry demands.

The case originated from a complaint by Shilpa Sanjeev against her husband Sanjeev Dhiman (accused No.1) and his family members, including accused Nos. 2 to 9. The allegations included dowry harassment, adultery, and property issues. The primary issue revolved around the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant, with ancillary allegations against other family members.

The High Court, presided over by Justice K. Natarajan, noted that the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 8 were vague and lacked specificity regarding their involvement in harassment or dowry demands. The Court observed, “The entire grievance is against accused No.1-husband,” and that there was no material evidence against other petitioners to proceed with the trial.

In the case of accused No.9, Dr. Seema Bhutani, the court found that the allegations pertained mainly to adultery. However, following the decriminalization of Section 497 IPC by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India, charges under Section 498A IPC and related abetment charges were deemed unsustainable.

The Court further remarked on the tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes, cautioning against implicating family members without a prima facie case.

The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings against petitioners accused Nos. 2 to 9, finding no material evidence against them for committing the offenses or abetment under Section 498A IPC.

 Date of Decision: 8th February 2024.

Dr. Seema Bhutani and others Vs. State

Latest Legal News