advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
gold ornaments
offence under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC = raised three grounds to quash the FIR against the petitioners = (i) The occurrence took place only at the jurisdiction of United States of America, therefore, the first Respondent has no jurisdiction to register the case. (ii) As the petitioners are the residents of United States of America, the FIR registered by the first respondent against the petitioners is not maintainable for want of sanction from the Central Government as provided under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. To substantiate the said contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohandoss and four others Vs.State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,Thallakulam, Madurai and another reported in 2003 (3) CTC 54 wherein it has been held that this Court has enormous power to quash the complaint. (iii) There is no specific allegation against the other family members regarding the demand of dowry as well as harassment. Hence, she prayed that the FIR against the petitioners has to be quashed. = whether the complaint filed by the wife before the first respondent police attracts the jurisdiction to register the complaint? = the husband started committing the offence immediately after of the marriage on the same day evening and it continued till her return to India. Since it is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and further both the persons are Indians, there is no need for any previous sanction as provided under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that the present complaint is maintainable in law. It does not require any sanction since it is a day to day domestic quarrel. ; the petitioners 4 and 5 is concerned, even though they are the residents of USA in the same house. Further, they never came to Madras. There is no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners 4 and 5 regarding any demand of dowry or any inducement regarding the dowry harassment. Since there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners 4 and 5 no case is made out against the petitioners 4 and 5. Therefore, I hold that the FIR against the petitioners 4 and 5 is abuse of process of law as per the law laid down in the Bhajanlal’s case reported in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). Hence, the FIR as against the petitioners 4 and 5 are quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.09.2012 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Criminal Original Petition No.14656 of 2012 1. Dr.Harihar Narasimha Iyer 2. Dr.Narasimha Iyer 3. Prof. Krishnakumari Ammal Rajammal 4. Dr.Indulekha Gopal 5. Anuradha Narasimhan … Petitioners/Accused Versus 1. State of Tamilnadu rep. by Inspector of Police, W.19, All Women Adayar … Continue reading
the benefit of acquital is extended to the non-appealed accused also=to do complete justice, it would be just and appropriate to extend the same benefit as has been extended to the appellant-accused/Madhu, also to Sibi- accused no.2. Therefore, for exactly the same reasons as have weighed with us in the instant appeal, to determine the acquittal of the appellant-accused/Madhu, we hereby order the acquittal of Sibi-accused no.2 as well, even though he has not preferred an appeal so as to assail the impugned judgment whereby he stands convicted. =circumstantial evidence – failure of prosecution to establish the same=If the motive had been theft, so as to snatch away the jewellery of Padmini Devi, it is difficult to understand why the accused only took away the golden chain around the neck of the deceased, and the six bangles on her right arm, and forsake the earrings on the person of the deceased. It is relevant to mention, that the factum of the earrings found on the person of the deceased has been explained in a wishy-washy manner. P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police, has specifically deposed on the recovery, retention and return of the earrings to the family of the deceased. The statement of PW21 reveals a sorry state of affairs in handling the investigation of the case in hand.
1 “REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.522 OF 2006 Madhu …. Appellant Versus State of Kerala …. Respondent J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant herein, Madhu Kalikutty Panicker (hereinafter referred to as “Madhu”) was charged along with Sibi Bhaskaran … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 