Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Rajan Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Govt Of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing multiple complaints with similar allegations is not permissible. (Para 1 , 2) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the FIR No. 0936/2016 dated 27.12.2016 under Sections 498A /406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden.
3. Respondent No. 2 came back to India for delivery of the child in August, 2004 and went back to Singapore on 07.10.2005, when the child was about 08 months old and since then they have been staying in Singapore. Both Petitioner No. 3 and Respondent No. 2 acquired a Permanent Residency in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
5. It is further detailed that the child started attending Halifax Montessori in 2007 and thereafter, joined NPS International School, Singapore in the year 2014. They also bought an Apartment on 08.06.2011 in Singapore in the joint name, which again establishes that their matrimonial home is in Singapore.
7. The father of Respondent No. 2 expired on 17.06.2014 and on the pretext of attending funeral of her father; Respondent No. 2 came back to India on 18.06.2014 by giving an undertaking to Petitioner No. 3 that she shall bring back the child to the jurisdiction of Singapore within
The misuse of legal provisions under Section 498A IPC, particularly in retaliatory contexts, is impermissible, warranting quashing of the FIR.
Continuing criminal proceedings after a mutual divorce settlement constitutes an abuse of process of law, as established in this case.
Specific allegations are essential to establish a prima facie case under IPC Sections 406 and 498-A; general allegations are insufficient for prosecution.
If allegations leading to criminal prosecution prima facie do not disclose, then power under section 482 CrPC can be exercised
The High Court's power to quash FIRs is limited and should only be exercised in rare cases where allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence.
Charges framed under Sections 498A and 323 IPC quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence, preventing abuse of process of law.
The High Court can quash FIRs against individuals named in dowry harassment cases when allegations are general, vague, and lack specificity, preventing abuse of the legal process.
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
