“Proceedings Are Counterblast”: Allahabad HC Quashes Chargesheet Against Woman Who Filed FIR Against Husband & In-Laws
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the summoning order and the chargesheet filed against the woman observing that proceedings were counterblast as she registered an FIR against her husband and in-laws for alleged cruelty and dowry demands.
The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed, “In aforesaid circumstances, since ingredients of Sections 504, 506 IPC are absolutely missing as well as not only FIR was lodged after about 11 months, without any explanation but on basis of above referred facts present proceedings are counter blast and were initiated with motive for wreaking vengeance, therefore, in the light of A.M. Mohan (supra), it is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power present criminal proceedings can be quashed.”
Advocates Abhay Kumar and Kumar Ankit Srivastava appeared for the Applicants whereas G.A. Qazi Vakil Ahmad appeared for the Opposite Parties.
The applicant herein is the daughter-in-law of the Complainant/Father-in-law/Opposite Party. She had registered an FIR against her father-in-law, husband and other relatives for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that she suffered cruelty with regard to demand of dowry.
As a result of the above-mentioned FIR, the Mother-in-law of the Applicant herein registered an FIR against her under Sections 457, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charge sheet and summoning order were under challenge in the present application.
Initially, FIR was filed under Sections 457, 448 and 506 of the IPC, however, after investigation allegation qua to offence under Sections 457 of the IPC (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment) and 448 IPC (Punishment for house trespass) were not found true and charge sheet was filed only under Sections 504, 506 of the IPC.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. and held, “mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and as referred above even the nature of abusive language is not on record. There is no statement to the effect that the alleged abusive language used by applicants was sufficient to insult the Complainant side to commit a breach of peace of an offence. As such, in the present case, even ingredients of Section 504 IPC are absolutely missing.”
The Court also observed that the ingredients of Criminal Intimidation as under Section 503 of the IPC i.e. the threat caused by the applicant must be with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, were also missing.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Application and the impugned order and chargesheet were quashed.
Cause Title: XXXX and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:105655)
Appearances:
Applicants: Advocates Abhay Kumar and Kumar Ankit Srivastava
Opposite parties: G.A. Qazi Vakil Ahmad