Important Judgement on 498A I.P.C

Important Judgement on 498A I.P.C

Important Judgement on 498A I.P.C

  • Police should justify their arrest and should not arrest without reason. Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr– Supreme Court-Date of decision-02 July 2014- Equivalent Citation (2014) 8 SCC 273.
  • Hon’ble Delhi High Court issue guideline for 498 A cases.Chander Bhan vs. State of Delhi– Delhi High Court- Date of decision-04 August 2008-Bail Application No. 1627/2008.
  • Adultery is not Cruelty for 498A. K.V. Prakash Babu vs. State of  Karnataka -Supreme Court- Date of decision 22 November 2016- CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO(S).   1138-1139 OF 2016 (@ S.L.P. (Crl) Nos.  5928-5929 OF 2016).
  • If needed defense documents may be examined at preliminary stage. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. Kunaldev Singh Rathore vs State Of M.P-Madhya Pradesh High Court- Date of decision-02 December 2016- Misc. Criminal Case No 2360/2014.
  • First Information Report (FIR) to be registered at the place of crime. Niraj Trivedi vs State Of Bihar And Ors– Delhi High Court- Date of decision-04 January 2008- Equivalent Citation-2008 (3) JCC 154.
  • Court admits misuse of 498A in many cases and quashes the case as respondent never stayed with complainant. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State of Jharkhand & Anr-Supreme Court- Date of decision-13 August 2010- Equivalent Citation -2010 (3) GLH 258, (2010) 7 SCC 667.
  • Wife files DV at Delhi and 498A at Mumbai on same allegations and facts, Supreme Court directs both the case to be tried by one court. Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others VS State of Maharashtra and another-Supreme Court- Date of decision-19 March 2015- Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2015 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 7684 of 2012).
  • Honorable Court defines the definition of relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498A includes the persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. Shaik Riayazun Bee vs The State of A.P-Andhra Pradesh High Court-Date of decision-01 June 2016. Criminal Petition No.8086 of 2013.
  • Honorable Allahabad High Court issued the Guidelines for arrest in 498A case.
  1. Compliance of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C and to refrain from routinely arresting persons wanted in cases punishable by imprisonment up to 7 years.
  2. Under section 498A IPC where the wife has gone back to her paternal home, it may not be necessary in a particular case to immediately arrest the husband and other family members until adequate evidence has been collected, as she is unlikely to encounter violence when she is away from her matrimonial home.
  3. Strong reasons are needed for arresting an accused with respectable antecedents, who is an income tax payee with roots in the community, and a permanent abode, no history of earlier abscondance or non-cooperation with the police and who is not likely to tamper with the evidence or to again commit a crime unless he is immediately arrested.
  4. Contempt of court and Disciplinary proceedings against the police who do not adhere to sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. Shaukin vs State Of U.P. And Others-Allahabad High Court- Date of decision-11-October 2011-Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011.
  • Apex Court explains conditions for the quashing of First Information Report (FIR). Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu-Supreme Court- Date of decision-19 February 2009- Equivalent Citation-(2009) 14 SCC 244.
  • Judgement against husband, Domestic Violence and 498A can be filed on the same facts. Jaiprakash Madhukarrao Sahurkar vs Sarika– Bombay High Court-Date of decision-29 February 2016-CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 497 OF 2015.
  • Honorable Apex Court defines the Section 498A, Section 304B & Dowry. Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P– Supreme Court- Date of decision-10 September 2007- Equivalent Citation- AIR 2007 SC 3146.
  • Honorable Delhi High Court admits misuse of Section 498A in many cases and sends some advisories to Central Government to take appropriate measures to curb the misuse. Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand And Ors-Delhi High Court- Date of decision-19 May 2003-Equivalent citations: 2003 CriLJ  2759, 104 (2003) DLT 824, II (2003) DMC 328, 2003 (69) DRJ 6.
  • Petitioner and the respondents are not persons living together in a shared household, vague allegation leveled against the husband and family members will not be sufficient to maintain the complaint. Kamlesh Devi vs Jaipal- Supreme Court- Date of decision-4 October, 2019SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s).34053/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-09-2016 in CRLR No.609/2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh).

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printouts from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

Also Read:-Important Judgement on Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1) (ia).

Feel free to Share this

Bhupendra Sharma

"Bhupendra Sharma is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court who completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan. He has pursued his LLM from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He is also a degree holder in Master of Education and Master of Business Administration."