PLR- Supreme Court e@journal

Latest update

IPC, Section 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sections 3, 4 -  Section 498A of IPC was clearly not tenable in view of the case of the complainant herself that there had been a divorce before filing of the FIR - Section 498A of the IPC opens with the words “ Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman….” - Therefore Where the complainant approaches with a case that there has been a divorce long back i.e. four years ago before filing of the FIR, section 498A of IPC in terms would not be attracted -  Prosecution against all the accused persons under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, quashed.(2018)2 SCeJ 1402 (DOD 21.8.18)


IPC, Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506  - True or false the charge is that the accused viz., husband and his mother, bit the complainant, the mother-in-law is said to have caught her by hair and the husband is said to have landed a fist  blow - There is vague allegation that the sister-in-law also caught the complainant by hair but it is not possible to ascertain which sister-in-law did so since two sisters-in-law were present at the time of occurrence -  It would be impermissible to carry on the prosecution against both of them - Husband and his mother must face prosecution under sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of IPC in accordance with law, the prosecution against the other accused persons under said sections is also quashed(2018)2 SCeJ 1402 (DOD 21.8.18)


IPC 498 A, 120B, 420, 365  -  Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths – The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out - Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband -  They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent - Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned - proceedings qua the Appellants quashed.(2018)2 SCeJ 1356


PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-


Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp


FREE with


 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/ / 9463598502  

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.