Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.K.MAHAJAN
Surender Kumar Jassal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.K. Mahajan, J. Petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No. 3 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 6th December, 1992. From 6th - December, 1992 to 8th March, 1994, respondent No. 3 stayed with Petitioner No. 1 at Bhopal. During this time, the mother of respondent No. 3 had also stayed with them as a son was born to respondent No. 3 in Bhopal on 22nd February, 1994. On 8th March, 1994 when the mother of respondent No. 3 wanted to return to Delhi, petitioner No. I sent respondent No. 3 also to Delhi alongwith her and told her that he would come to Delhi to fetch her back to Bhopal after about two months. However, as per the contention of respondent No. 3 till date petitioner No. I had not come to fetch her back to Bhopal.
2. On 29th December, 1994 on a complainant of respondent No. 3, FIR No. 683/94 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC was registered against the petitioners. It was alleged by the said respondent in the complaint that after the marriage the petitioners used to harass her for more dowry. While petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of respondent No. 3, petitioner No, 3 is the sister of her husband. After recording the statement of witnesses and inves
Specific evidence and details are essential in allegations of harassment and dowry demands for justifying the continuation of legal proceedings.
Specific allegations are required against each accused in dowry harassment cases; vague accusations do not justify criminal proceedings.
General allegations without specific incidents are insufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 498A IPC, necessitating more detailed evidence of harassment or cruelty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
