General Statement Without Any Reference To Nature Of Cruelty Won't Cover Offence U/S 498A IPC Mechanically: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court said that the general statement, without any reference to nature of cruelty would not cover offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) mechanically.
The Court was dealing with an application filed by the husband and his close relatives including some women family members.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery remarked, "A reference is made to statement recorded during investigation that all applicants were not happy with dowry given at the time of marriage and soon after marriage, they repeatedly demanded dowry of Rs.5 lakh and Bolero and used to assault her also, however, no reference is given about any day, month or year of such act as marriage period was of 5 years, therefore, it could be considered to be a “general and omnibus allegations” as well as the allegations of assault are not supported by any medical evidence, though allegations are of also repeated assault. General statement, without any reference to nature of cruelty would not cover offence under Section 498A I.P.C. mechanically."
Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah appeared for the applicants while Advocate Shubham Prakash Gupta appeared for the opposite parties.
In this case, the opposite party (complainant/wife) got married to the applicant (husband) in 2017 and there were some matrimonial disputes between them. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the complainant left her matrimonial house allegedly either on her own will or by force. She went to her parental house alone without her two sons. Then she lodged an FIR in 2023 against the applicants i.e., the husband and his close relatives.
It was alleged that the applicants committed offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). After investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide an order. Being aggrieved, the applicants were before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “… it is a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as ingredients of referred offences are not made out against applicants no. 2 to 8.”
The Court noted that FIR was lodged only after a divorce petition was filed by the applicant. The Court added that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings or chargesheet against the applicant.
“… trial will proceed further against applicant no.1 only for above referred offences and till date if he has not surrendered, it is directed that he will surrender before trial Court within 4 weeks from today and in case any application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law and taking note of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773”, it directed.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the application and quashed the case against the applicant’s close relatives.
Cause Title- Mohd. Ashraf and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:105603)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocate Syed Shahnawaz Shah
Opposite Parties: Advocates Shubham Prakash Gupta and Mukesh Chandra Gupta.
