February 13, 2019
Case name: Anju v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
In the case, the Petitioner wife has challenged Lower Court’s order, whereby the Court discharged the respondents of the charge under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Delhi High Court while appreciating the facts of the case noted that in the FIR, the Petitioner wife in one breath has named all the family members without any specific role being ascribed to any one of them. Thus, there were no specifics given as to when the reported instances allegedly happened or any evidence to substantiate or corroborate the allegations against the husband’s relatives. It was also noted by the Court that the allegations against the respondents were quite general and unspecific. The complainant has not mentioned any date, time, month or year when she was subjected to beating by them.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court of Bombay upheld the Revisional Court’s order and opined that the Court had committed no error in coming to a conclusion that apart from general and omnibus allegations roping in all the relations, there is no material on record to justify framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC.
The entire case can be accessed here.
Related Posts
Note on SC’s Directions on Misuse of Section 498A of IPC
Misuse of Section 498A- Supreme Court Modifies Directions Issued in Rajesh Sharma case
Supreme Court on Misuse of Section 498 A – Vague and Cryptic Allegations can’t Prove Offence
Important Judgments on Section 498A of IPC
