SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013, Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012 and Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012.
2. In both the cases, common facts, FIR and the order taking cognizance are under challenge, that’s why both the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.
3. In Cr.M.P. No. 3308 of 2013 prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 28.06.2013, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Sector-IV (Sector-VI) P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1542 of 2012 [arising out of C.P. Case No. 822 of 2012], pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.
4. In Cr.M.P. No. 2540 of 2012, prayer has been made for quashing of the entire criminal procee
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Versus State of U.P. & Ors.
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr; reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr; reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273
Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr; reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr; reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741
The court established that specific allegations are necessary to sustain a charge under Section 498A IPC, preventing misuse of the provision in matrimonial disputes.
The judgment emphasizes the need for specific allegations in cases involving Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and cautions against false implications by way of general omnibus allegations.
The court emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in Section 498A IPC cases to prevent misuse and quashed proceedings lacking prima facie evidence.
Court emphasized that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws under Section 498A IPC do not warrant prosecution, warning against misuse of the law in matrimonial disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.