You are currently viewing ๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ท๐—ฎ๐—ฏ & ๐—›๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—œ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐Ÿญ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ข๐—ป ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—–๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜๐˜† ๐—–๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—”๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€๐˜ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ% ๐——๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—œ๐—ป-๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐˜€

๐—ฃ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ท๐—ฎ๐—ฏ & ๐—›๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—œ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐Ÿญ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ข๐—ป ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—™๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—–๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜๐˜† ๐—–๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—”๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€๐˜ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ% ๐——๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—œ๐—ป-๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐˜€

The FIR, in the matter, was registered in May 2017 for subjecting a married woman to cruelty under Sections 498-A of the IPC at a police station in Jhajjar district. Justice Gupta asserted its perusal revealed that the allegations against the father-in-law were that he โ€œruns to beatโ€ the complainant and โ€œhits with a stickโ€ on her back.

But the medical certificate showed he could walk only with the aid of crutches. โ€œAs such, there is no question of the petitioner running to beat the complainant or even hitting her with a stick as such an act would likely cause him to fall.โ€

The mother-in-lawโ€™s certificate showed she was bound to a wheelchair and her lower limbs were completely non-functional. โ€œIn such a situation the allegation of the complainant that the mother-in-law dragged her to the courtyard by holding her by the hair and slapped her is shocking and on the face of it blatantly untrue,โ€ Justice Gupta asserted.

In her detailed order, Justice Gupta asserted the court found the present case to be one โ€œwhere a manifestly frivolous, vexatious, and ill-intended proceeding has been inflicted upon the petitioners. Such a practice amongst cas

Justice Gupta asserted the petitioners were even unable to walk. Accomplishing day-to-day functions for them would cause extreme hardship to them โ€œwhat to talk of abusing the complainantโ€. As such, the court had no hesitation in stating that the opposite was true โ€œinasmuch as evidently it is the complainant who has inflicted torture and abuse upon the petitionersโ€.

Justice Gupta asserted the sanctity of law, its legal processes, and its provisions were enacted to mitigate the suffering. Its blatant misuse as a tool for setting personal scores could not be allowed.

โ€œIn the present case, the impugned FIR is a gross abuse of the due process of law. As such, as a reformative, punitive, and deterrent measure, the complainant is directed to deposit exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakh before the illaqa magistrate/trial court, within four months.โ€

Before parting with the case, Justice Gupta said the amount would be disbursed to the in-laws in equal shares. Failure to comply with the direction within the stipulated period would lead to initiation of appropriate proceedings against her by the illaqa magistrate/trial court.

Leave a Reply