No use keeping criminal writ petition pending for disposal. Click here to sign up. State Of Jharkhand Court: Clauses a and b not attracted. Punjab and Haryana High Court Vexatious and malicious complaint. Supreme Court of India Section A — There is not the slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or he has assaulted or treated the wife with cruelty or torture.

Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment. The position of the women in India is still bad. Sections , A, , State Of Assam Court: The State of Karnataka Court:

More from this Firm. May 24, 0. Delhi High Court Return of charge-sheet on ground of lack of jurisdiction. The apex court expressed concerns over misuse of the anti dowry law. This hardship can be avoided by making the offence bailable and compoundable.

Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years in mines, factories or any other hazardous employment. Husband stufy established offence of cruelty in marriage as against respondent.

case study ipc 498a

Madhya Pradesh High Court General, vague etudy omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to send other relatives of husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with family affairs of complainant — Complainant has not only made vague allegations against Applicants, but she went to extent of assassinating character.


Since all the disputes have been resolved between the Husband and the Wife, and the terms and conditions have been implemented, no useful purpose will be served to award substantive sentence to the Husband under Section A IPC. The Appellant wife had also admitted in the case that she had filed the Pic Complaint in order to bring back her husband to their matrimonial home.

Remember me on this computer. Such demand could not necessarily come under definition of demand of dowry. March 5, casr. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. November 14, 0. Many a hapless husbands and in laws have become victims of their vengeful daughter-in-laws.

a Judgments: a Landmark Judgements – Indian Penal Code a

Shitul H Chanchani and Anr. Kiran was minor at the time of occurrence. Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan Vs. April 10, 0.

(DOC) Misuse of section A in Indian society | Rahul Jain –

What should we do? Sho Nandyal Iii Town P. Is Indian Law favouring Women. This provision is not ultra vires.

Supreme Court, in a relatively recent case, Sushil Kumar Shudy vs. While arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court noted observations made by the Courts in earlier cases and the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India. Reasoning given by Trial Court for acquittal not contrary to settled principles of law and upheld. FIR under section A quashed. November 2, 0.


498a Landmark Judgements

But Delhi High Court negatives this contention and held that this section does not create situation for double jeopardy. Not only this, the power of czse is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption….

August 13, 0. At the stage of framing of the charge, the material placed before court is only to be looked to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and not whether the material is sufficient for conviction.

case study ipc 498a

National Commission for Women Report https: The Court brought under notice the facts that the appellants in the case did not even reside at the place of mishap.