Some years back, I was sucked into the labyrinth of Indian Matrimonial laws and a false 498a in particular. To be fair, before it hit me, it was difficult for me to fathom the wide spread misuse of dowry laws and specially 498a in India.
CONSULTATION
Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 13 May, 2008 Law Point: Explanation of section 4 of IPC and 188 of CrPC, No NRI to be arrested without permission from Government JUDGEMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. Interpretation of Section 4 […]
Court: Bombay High Court Bench: B.R. Gavai Shekhar Shivdas Mahire vs Sou. Sarikabai Shekhar Mahire on 13 April, 2010 Mr. A. P. Mundargi – amicus curiae appointed by the Court. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe i/b. Mr. P. B. Shah for Applicants. Ms. Rita K. Joshi for Respondent No. 1. Mr. P. S. Hingorani – APP for […]
Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R.M. Lodha, A.K. Patnaik Amar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2010 Law Point: Mere demand of dowry cannot be prosecuted u/s 498A or 304B JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 854 of 2004 This is an appeal against the judgment dated 07.10.2003 of the High Court of Rajasthan, […]
Court: Delhi District Court Bench: Sh. Daya Prakash Surender Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 May, 2014 Law Point: Acquittal in 498 A – Benefit of doubt due to afterthought and incredible version of prosecution JUDGEMENT 1. By this judgment, I shall dispose off the present appeal under Section 374 […]
Court: Allahabad High Court Bench: M Jain, M Chaudhary Zeba Khalil Wife Of Prof. Khalil A. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 18 November, 2005 Law Point: Action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is undertaken in the interest of justice and not to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant. Every case of perjury […]
Court: Supreme Court Of India Bench: JUSTICES Dr. Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain Shivanand Mallappa Koti Vs. The State of Karnataka On 05 June 2007 Law Point: Conviction for offence under Section 498 cannot be sustained in absence of unlawful demand for property and valuable articles. JUDGEMENT 1. In the present appeal, challenge is to […]