NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings U/S 498A IPC: Absence of Specific Allegations and Evidence Against Appellants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings against Mahalakshmi and others in a marital cruelty and dowry demands case, citing the “absence of specific allegations and evidence against appellants.” The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti highlighted the need for concrete evidence in cases involving marital disputes.

The appellants, Mahalakshmi, Maharani T.S., Ranjanavadhan, and Archana, were implicated in a case filed by Rekha Bhaskaran, under Sections 498A and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed that the allegations against the appellants were vague and lacked specific details that constitute cruelty under section 498A of the IPC.

Justice Khanna, while delivering the judgment, stated, “In the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC.” This observation underlines the court’s stance on the necessity of substantive evidence in cases alleging marital cruelty.

The court also pointed out that appellant no. 1, Mahalakshmi, was not residing in India at the time of the alleged incidents, and the other appellants were living separately from the complainant’s marital home. This further weakened the prosecution’s case, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The judgment also referenced several precedents, emphasizing the need for specific allegations and evidence in marital cruelty cases, such as Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and others.

While the proceedings against the appellants have been quashed, the court clarified that if any new material evidence comes to light during the recording of evidence, it would be open for the trial court to take action under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Date of Decision: 30th November 2023

MAHALAKSHMI & ORS. VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Latest Legal News