Judgments: U/S- 498A IPC [Dowry Demand] & U/S-304B IPC [Dowry Death] 

• Acquittal: 498A Cases culminating in acquittal of the husband & in-laws. 
• Anticipatory Bail: In the Cases involving 498A Cases.  
• Bail: In the Cases involving 498A Cases.  
• Conviction: 498A Cases culminating in conviction of the husband & in-laws. 
• Sentence & Imprisonment: Judgments On Sentence- Judgments Culminating In Modification of The Term of The Sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone, etc. 
• Quashing Of FIR: In the Cases involving 498A Cases. 

Judgments- 498A IPC  

• Rajesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.- AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 
• Manav Adhikar 2018 (10) SCC 443 
• Arnesh Kumar Vs. State Of Bihar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1277  OF 2014, Order dated: 02.07.2014, Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad & Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citations: (2014) 8 SCC 273 [Full PDF Judgments]- Anticipatory Bail. 
• Baljeet Singh (Dr.) Versus State NCT Of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(Crl) 503/2013, Judgment Dated- 02.05.2013, Bench: Pratibha Rani, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Judgments On Quashing Of FIR- Seeking Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].  
• Bansi Lal Vs. State of Haryana– Criminal Appeal No. 1322 Of 2004- Supreme Court Of India Judgment-14.11.2011- 1978 Cri LJ- S-498A IPC- S-304-B IPC- 306 IPC [Full PDF Judgment]. 

• Bhupendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh– Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2008- Supreme Court -11.11.2013- (2014) 2 SCC 106- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav & Ors. Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 45 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 19.01.2016, Bench: Thakur, A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi, JJ,, Supreme Court Of India [Full Bench PDF Judgment].- Criminal prosecution for the offence U/Ss. 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.- “13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act…” [Full Bench PDF Judgment].  
• B.S. Joshi & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 383 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 13.03.2003, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 675 [Full PDF Judgment].- The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.- The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes.- The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. W hen such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Section s 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are no n-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.- The SC quashed the FIR  [Full PDF Judgment]..  
• Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab– SC-23.11.2010- (Crl.) No.8989 of 2010= Criminal Appeal Nos.2107-2125 of 2011- 2012-10-SCC-303- Settlement And Compounding Of Criminal Cases [Full PDF Judgments] [Full PDF Judgments]. 
• Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1096 Of 2011, Judgment Dated: 29.11.2012, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi  High Court [Full PDF Judgment]: Issue No.1, quashing of FIR under Sections 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.- Issue No.2: Equally Efficacious Remedy.- Issue No.3: Territorial jurisdiction of Police to register an FIR and carry on with the investigation of the said FIR.- Issue No.4: Extent & Scope of S-482 Cr.P.C.- Issue No.5: When the Petitioner does not co-opertae with the investigation, is he entitled for relief U/S-482 Cr.P.C.- Held, “13. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners while invoking inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot state that they will not submit to other provisions of Cr.P.C. In fact, the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to ensure that no person abuses the process of law and that justice is done. This Court is of the view that the petitioners who are not cooperating with the Police, cannot invoke this Court’s equitable jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”. 

• Jafar Abbas Rasoolmohammad Merchant Vs. State Of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14361 Of 2010, Judgment Dated- 05.11.2015, J.B.Pardiwala, J, Gujrat High Court- Quashing   of   the   Criminal proceedings arising from the FIR U/S- 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 494, 406, 420 IPC- Ss. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Jagdish v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1097/2012, Judgment Dated: 25/11/2014, Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: R. Banumathi, J., Citation: 2015(2) SCC 252: 2014(13) JT 249: 2014(13) SCALE 148: 2014(9) SLT 625: 2015(2) Crimes 200(SC)- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201- Judgments On Sentence- Judgments Culminating In Modification of The Term of The Sentence to the period of incarceration already undergone, etc.- Conviction under- Scope, lack of persistent demand of dowry, accused leaving separately from deceased, effect of- Death of sister-in-law of appellant by burning- Appeal against conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A by appellant/Jagdish/elder brother of husband of deceased- Held, a mere demand of dowry at one or two instances may not attract provisions of Section 304B IPC though such demand might be an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- There is no material to show that there was persistent demand of dowry by first appellant-Jagdish- Appellant who stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and first appellant is to be acquitted of charge of 304B IPC but to be convicted under Section 498-A IPC- HELD: In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., first appellant-Jagdish has stated that he has no wife or child and that he is living separately in Village Churiyala and that his brother Sukhbir was living with his wife and children. First appellant has further stated that he has been living separately even prior to the marriage of Chandrahas and that he has his own food prepared. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the first appellant-Jagdish. Insofar as signature of first appellant-Jagdish in Ex A-3 compromise deed is concerned, being elder member of the family and to ensure peaceful married life of Chandrahas, first appellant perhaps might have signed in the compromise deed. The first appellant who is stated to be living separately could not have persistently subjected Seema to dowry harassment and cruelty and the first appellant is to be acquitted of the charge of 304B IPC. For the alleged demand of dowry by the first appellant as spoken by PWs 1 and 2, the first appellant is to be convicted under Section 498A IPC. As seen from the materials on record, first appellant-Jagdish was about 70 years of age in the year 1996. Considering his age, lenient view has to be taken in imposing the sentence for the offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 16)- As Jagdish 70 years of age, he is sentenced to period already undergone by him for committing offence under Section 498A IPC (Para 15 & 16) [Full PDF Judgments]. 
• Jagdish Thakkar Vs. Delhi– 1992 (3) CCR 2764- The Proceedings under S-498 are not the one for recovery of articles [reported as 1993 JCC 117]. 
• K. Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka– (2015) 2 SCC 638- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- premeditation- predetermined motive or enmity- constant quarrel ever ensued [Full PDF Judgment].  
• Kush Kalra Vs. Union Of India & Anr– W.P.(C)No.10498 of 2015- DelHC-05.01.2018- Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India- Institutional Discrimination- mandamus sought to place female gainfully employed candidates at par with similarly placed male candidate- The recruitment into the Indian Territorial Army [Full PDF Judgment] 

• Major Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1145/2012, Judgment Dated: 08/04/2015; Bench: T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, J.: Amitava Roy, J.-  Citation: 2015(5) SCC 201: 2015(5) JT 435: 2015(4) SCALE 599: 2015(2) JCC 1385: 2015 AIR(SC) 2081: 2015(6) SLT 452.- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Acquittal- Lack of reasonable nexus between harassment and death, convition set aside- Appeal against judgment of High Court of whereby High Court confirmed conviction of appellants under Section 304B- During pendency of appeal before High Court, husband of deceased died and appeal against husband abated and appeal survived qua appellants viz., father-in-law and mother-in-law- Held, Karamjit Kaur died due to organo phosphorus poisoning within 21/2 years of marriage- However, fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry not proved by prosecution- Both courts below acquitted all accused for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC- No evidence as to demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”- Conviction of appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside- Appeal allowed.- Hira Lal & Ors. vs. State(Govt. of NCT) Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 80; State of A.P. vs. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 470; Balwant Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 724; Kaliyaperumal & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2004) 9 SCC 157; Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2 SCC 388; Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 1 SCC 463; Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, (2008) 1 SCC 202 & Narayanamurthy vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 512, Relied on (Para 11, 13, 14, 17 & 18)- HELD: Prosecution has not examined any independent witness or the Panchayatdars to prove that there was demand of dowry and that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment. Ordinarily, offences against married woman are being committed within the four corners of a house and normally direct evidence regarding cruelty or harassment on the woman by her husband or relatives of the husband is not available. But when PW3 has specifically stated that the demand of dowry by the accused was informed to the Panchayatdars and that Panchayat was taken to the village Badiala, the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty of Karamjit Kaur by her husband or relatives could have been proved by examination of the Panchayatdars. The fact that deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry is not proved by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that both the courts below have acquitted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC (Para 13)- Insofar as the occurrence on 14.08.1996, PWs 1 and 3 have stated that they saw the accused dragging Karamjit Kaur towards a room inside the house and that Karamjit Kaur was trembling and on seeing PWs 1 and 3, all the four accused persons ran away and after taking last breath Karamjit Kaur expired. Subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises serious doubts about their presence in the house of the accused at the time of occurrence and witnessing accused dragging deceased-Karamjit Kaur. That PWs 1 and 3 have not raised any alarm nor tried to chase the accused and that PW1 did not inform anyone in the village of the accused looks quite unnatural. The subsequent conduct of PWs 1 and 3 raises doubt about their presence at the time of occurrence and the prosecution version. But the fact remains that deceased-Karamjit Kaur died within 21/2 years of marriage otherwise under normal circumstances. As pointed out earlier, in the cases of dowry death prosecution is obliged to show that “soon before the occurrence” deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. In the absence of proof that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment “soon before her death”, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained (Para 14)- There is no evidence as to the demand of dowry or cruelty and that deceased Karamjit Kaur was subjected to dowry harassment “soon before her death”. Except the demand of scooter, there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of dowry demand. Assuming that there was demand of dowry, in our view, it can only be attributed to the husband-Jagsir Singh who in all probability could have demanded the same for his use. In the absence of any evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellants, the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. The trial court and the High Court have not analyzed the evidence in the light of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC and the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC is liable to be set aside (Para 17) [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana– Criminal Appeal No. 696 Of 2009-SC-27.03.2014- (2014) 12 SCC 595- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana– Supreme Court -09.02.1998- bride burning’ and ‘dowry deaths’- Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961- IPC- S-306, 498-A & 304-B IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].  
• Rajesh Sharma-SC-27.07.2017-498A- Guidelines Qua Welfare Committee- Family Members Personal Appearance- In this case, referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281, Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540, Chander Bhan versus State5 in Bail Application No.1627/2008, Delhi High Court, (2008) 151 DLT 691, Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged. Honble Supreme Court Of India, therefore, issued the following directions to prevent such misuse: (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority; (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing; (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses; (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication; (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint; (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected; (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit; …..(iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; (v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; (vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and (vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. (viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death [Full PDF Judgments].  
• Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 799/2011, Judgment Dated-14/01/2015, Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.: N.V. Ramana, J., Citation: 2015(4) SCC 215: 2015(1) SCALE 354: 2015(1) SLT 525: 2015 CrLJ 1560: 2015(1) Crimes 267(SC): 2015(2) JCC 1049: 2015(3) Supreme 12- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Conviction for dowry death- Death under other than normal circumstance, harassment soon before death, justified- Trial Court convicted appellant/husband of deceased u/s 498A and 304B IPC and acquitted other accused (mother and his sister)- On appeal, High Court set aside conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 498A IPC while upholding conviction and sentence u/s 304B- Appeal- Held, death of deceased (wife) occurred within seven years of her marriage- Not disputed that her death not under normal circumstances- Statements of complainant (PW-7/elder sister of deceased) and PW-13/brother were specific about harassment of deceased by accused in connection with demand of dowry- It is also evident from evidence on record that she was meted out with such harassment soon before her death- Prosecution was successful in proving ingredients of Section 304-B IPC- Trial Court rightly presumed that accused had caused dowry death of victim and High Court rightly upheld conviction and sentence- Appeal dismissed (Para 8, 12, 13 & 14)- HELD: Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement made by the complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in their statements. Defence also could not make out anything to disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From the statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13), we find that the deceased-Raj Rani had been harassed on account of demand of dowry soon before her death (Para 8) [Full PDF Judgments].  

• Ramgopal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540- Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments]. 
• Ramo Devi Vs. State– 2016(3) JCC 1579- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Rauavarapu Punnayya case [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rauavarapu Punnayya & Another]– 1977 1 SCR 601- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment]. 
• Sanjay Singh case [State  Vs. Sanjay Singh]- Crl.A.766 Of 2017- Delhi High Court- 08.01.2018- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment].  
• Shanti Vs. State of Haryana– (1991) 1 SCC 371- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment]. 

• Sherish Hardenia Vs. State of M.P.– Criminal Appeal No. 2087 OF 2013- Framing of Charge- Discharge-S-498-A &  306 IPC [Full PDF Judgments]. 
• Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India– SC-19.07.2005-Writ Petition (Civil)  141 of 2005- (2005) 6 SCC 281- Quashing- Legislation- Section 498-A- rampant misuse- S-498A is not unconstitutional and ultra vires- Guidelines issued so that the innocent persons are not victimized at the hands of unscrupulous persons [Full PDF Judgment].