406 of the IPC – An application u/s. 482 CrPC was filed seeking quashment of the FIR – The High Court declined to exercise the power u/s. 482 CrPC and consequently dismissed the petition qua the appellant – Propriety:
Held: The unrefuted position of facts reveal that the appellant had already filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with the second respondent-complainant and also application u/ss. 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 for declaring him as the guardian of the minor daughter on 16.05.2016 – Whereas, the FIR in question was filed on 04.09.2016 – On perusal of materials on record, the necessary ingredients to attract the offences u/ss. 323, 384 and 406 of the IPC qua the appellant were not found – As relates the allegation of commission of offence u/s. 323, IPC besides the bald statement that when complainant asked appellants-accused about her daughter, they had beaten her, there & ANR.
is no material whatsoever to support the allegation causation of hurt is available on record much less voluntary causation of hurt – There is no material on record that after the incident she went to a doctor or underwent any kind of treatment – There is no statement that injury report was prepared – The basic ingredients to constitute an offence u/s. 323, IPC is not satisfied – As relates the alleged commission of offence u/s. 384, IPC, the twin ingredients that (i) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; (ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, are not satisfied – Considering the accusation of commission of offence u/s. 406, IPC, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence u/s. 406, IPC are: (i) Entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property; (ii) the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use that property; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation – (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharge, or; (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust, are also not satisfied – The High Court has clearly fallen in error in not invoking the powers u/s. 482, CrPC to quash the proceedings qua the appellant. [Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12] OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.