Wednesday, July 17, 2013

wife takes MOOLAH, agrees quash 498a, later changes stand AFTER SIGNING ! Husb runs to HC ! HC quashes 498a ; Quoting honourable HC "......I am of the considered opinion that the stand now taken by the second respondent is nothing but an afterthought. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that true understanding had been reached between the parties and on such, understanding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner, which has been held in deposit for the benefit of the minor child. Clearly, this is a case where the respondent seeks her pound of flesh. Interests of justice would require that such pernicious proceedings be brought to an end....."

brief notes

*********************************

wife takes MOOLAH, agrees quash 498a, later changes stand AFTER SIGNING ! Husb runs to HC ! HC quashes 498a ; Quoting honourable HC "......I am of the considered opinion that the stand now taken by the second respondent is nothing but an afterthought. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that true understanding had been reached between the parties and on such, understanding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner, which has been held in deposit for the benefit of the minor child. Clearly, this is a case where the respondent seeks her pound of flesh. Interests of justice would require that such pernicious proceedings be brought to an end....."

**********************************************************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

**********************************************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS dot NET 

**********************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


DATED: 26.03.2010


CORAM:


THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM


Crl.O.P.No. 1433 of 2007 & M.P. No. 1 of 2007


1. Dr. R. Selvakumar

2. Raji

3. Lakshmi

4. Vijayakumar .. Petitioners.

Versus


1. State rep. by

   The Inspector of Police

   Omalur Police Station,

   Omalur, Salem (Dt.).


2. V. Mahalakshmi  .. Respondent.


(R2 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 24.01.2007.)


Prayer:  Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking for a direction to call for the records in C.C. No. 211 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur and quash the same.


For Petitioners     :    Mr.G.K. Ilanthirayan


For R1   :    Mr. J.C. Durairaj

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)


For R2      :    Mr.S. Sasikumar

     *****

   

O R D E R


     This petition seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 211 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. In such case, the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences under Section 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.


2. Learned counsel for the petitioners informs that in the course of Family Court proceedings in F.C.O.P. No. 33 of 2001 on the file of the Family Court, Salem, the proceeding for divorce filed by the first petitioner herein, the parties viz the petitioner and the second respondent have entered into a compromise whereunder on payment of Rs.3,50,000/- towards welfare of the child, the second respondent had agreed to withdraw the criminal case, pendency of which is now challenged here. Reference was drawn to the memo filed by the second respondent in such case. In such memo, referring to the joint memo filed by the parties, the second respondent had stated that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- deposited towards maintenance of the minor girl child may be deposited with the State Bank of India, Mettur Branch  so as to enable the second respondent to collect the interest until the child attains majority and therein, the second respondent clearly undertakes to withdraw the criminal case pending against the petitioner and his family in C.C. No. 211 of 2002 before Judicial Magistrate, Omalur. In the course of her examination in C.C. No. 211 of 2002, the second respondent / defacto complainant had deposed that she had signed the joint memo, since the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- was promised, that she did not read the same and was not aware of the entire contents thereof. She admits to having signed the same in Court on 28.03.2006 in the presence of her counsel, who, she claims, did not read out the same to her. She also admits to a decree of divorce granted on the strength of the said memo. She also admits that on receipt of fixed deposit receipt for Rs.3,50,000/-, she accepted to withdraw the complainant's case.


3. Learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the joint memo filed before the Family Court was not an act of volition on the part of the respondent and as such, the same cannot be held to bind the respondent. Learned counsel would submit that the proceedings before the lower Court ought to be continued. 

 

4. I have considered the rival submissions as also those of the learned Government Advocate. 


5. I am of the considered opinion that the stand now taken by the second respondent is nothing but an afterthought. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that true understanding had been reached between the parties and on such, understanding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner, which has been held in deposit for the benefit of the minor child. Clearly, this is a case where the respondent seeks her pound of flesh. Interests of justice would require that such pernicious proceedings be brought to an end. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 211 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur are quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.











ar


To


1. The Inspector of Police

   Omalur Police Station,

   Omalur, Salem (Dt.).


2. The Public Prosecutor, 

   High Court, 

   Madras