Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. Etc.
N.V.Sharma Vs. Union of India.
Mahesh Kumar V. State of Haryana.
.SC: Cruelty – Participation – Not participating in settlement of dowry dispute – Cannot be construed as cruelty and harassment.
.Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty and harassment – Appellants 2 and 4 not taking initiative and not participating in settlement of dowry dispute – Cannot be construed as cruelty and harassment.
.In this case, the finding of the High Court is that the appellant nos. 2 and 4 did not come forward to participate in the settlement of the dowry on the ground that they belonged to the groom’s family and remained silent. This act of remaining silent cannot be by any stretch of imagination construed to be an act of cruelty or harassment towards the deceased within the meaning of section 304B IPC. The act of remaining silent with regard to the settlement of the dowry demand will also not amount to cruelty within the meaning of either clause (a) or clause (b) of the explanation of Section 498A IPC.
Case:
Bharat Bhushan and Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Citation:
2017(2) Acquittal 123 (SC).
.SC: Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 464 – Offence of forgery – Cannot lie against a person who has not created or signed the document.
.The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to make”, in itself involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
Case:
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. Etc.
Citation:
2018 0 AIR(SC) 2434.
SC: Alternate remedy – HC can grant reliefs u/s. 482 Cr.PC
.Article.32-Writ petition- Altetnate remedy – Petition for quashing of FIR – As part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi, equally effective relief can be granted by High Court in exercise of powers u/Art.226 of Constitution as well as u/S.482 of Cr.P.C – Petitioner is at liberty to pursue prayer of quashing at Delhi.
Case:
N.V.Sharma Vs. Union of India.
Citation:
AIR Online 2022 SC 1176 (B) .
SC: Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 464 – Offence of forgery – Cannot lie against a person who has not created or signed the document.
The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding Explanation 2 as given in Section 464 IPC. As Collin J., puts it precisely in Dickins v. Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to make”, in itself involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it.
Case:
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. Etc.
Citation:
2018 0 AIR(SC) 2434.
SC: Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 304B – Prosecution failing to prove demand of dowry soon before death of deceased – Ingredients of section 304B not proved – Prosecution also failing to prove initial presumption u/s 113 – B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Allegations against appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt – conviction set aside.*_
In view of the judgements referred to above, the prosecution has failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before her death. Therefore, the essential ingredients of offence under section 304 – B of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to prove the initial presumption under Section 113 – B of the Evidence Act.
We find that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we allow the present appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant and set him at liberty as long as he is not involved in any other case. Bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Case:
Mahesh Kumar V. State of Haryana.
Citation:
2019 0 AIR(SC) 4225.