#abuseofprocessoflaw

"Paramour Not Family: Court Rules Paramours Cannot Be Charged Under Section 498A IPC!"

Smt. Nandini Nallapan & another v. State of Karnataka & Another

Criminal Petition 88/2023

Before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M Nagaprasanna J

Disposed of on 12.06.2024

Background of the Case:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings. The charges against the petitioners include offenses under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Facts of the Case:

Marriage and Discord:

The core issue arose from marital discord between the complainant-Wife Smt. Swarna and her husband, who married on February 7, 2022.

Accusations:

The relationship deteriorated, and the complainant-wife lodged a complaint implicating several family members and associates of her husband. The petitioners, Smt. Nandini Nallappan (Paramour & accused) and Smt. Alamelu Nallappan (mother of the paramour), was among those accused.

Role of Petitioners:

The complainant alleged that Nandini was a paramour of the complainant's husband and that Alamelu was Nandini’s mother. However, the complaint did not provide specific allegations linking these petitioners to the claimed offenses.

Legal Arguments:

Petitioners' Counsel:

Argued that the complaint lacked substantive allegations against the petitioners. It was highlighted that dragging Nandini into the proceedings was unwarranted as a paramour does not qualify as a family member or relative under Section 498A IPC.

Respondent's Counsel:

Contended that the police investigation substantiated the charges against the petitioners and that they should stand trial.

Court's Observation:

Lack of Evidence:

After scrutinizing the complaint Court found that the complaint did not contain any credible allegations or evidence against the petitioners. There was no mention of actions by the petitioners that would constitute the claimed offenses.

Legal Position:

The court reiterated that a paramour could not be implicated under Section 498A IPC as they are neither considered a family member nor a relative.

Misuse of Law:

The Hon’ble Court observed that involving the petitioners in the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the legal process.

Order:

Public Interest Litigation is an initiation of a legal action in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest where legal rights and liabilities of the public or a particular class of the public is affected. Before entertaining a PIL court sees the seriousness of the petitioner as to whether he is actually the champion of the cause of the persons or group he is representing if the answer is otherwise Court dismisses the PIL.

Mahant Dinesh Das v. State of UP & 5 Others

Public Interest Litigation 1904/2023

The Bench of Hon’ble Mr.Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Srivastava J dismissed the PIL with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Facts:

The Public Interest Litigation petition was seeking a direction to the State for removal of unauthorized occupation over the land/ property of Shri Tahkur Ji Saket Bihari Mandir, Ramkola Road, Padrauna and also for a direction to take appropriate decision on the representation dated 24.11.2022 of the petitioner.

Observation of the Court

Harsh Gupta v. Union of India

W P ( c ) 473/2023

Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice of India & Hon’ble Mr. Justice P S Narsimha J

Dismissed on 04.07.2023

it is a mockery of justice that resources of legal system are consumed by petitions in the name of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) when the Supreme Court is facing escalating pendency of cases where the personal liberty of the person is involved and have legitimate expectation of early justice. Now is being brazenly misused to seek publicity or to settle business and political rivalry.

The spirit behind public interest petition was that a citizen may approach the court to ventilate grievance of a person or class of persons who are unable to pursue their rights.

A PIL was filed by a Law student Harsh Gupta from Agra under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking to abolish “male” pronouns in the Constitution of India. The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud J and Hon’ble Mr. Justice PS Narasimha J. Under the garb of right to equality the petitioner intended to get the word ‘male’ abolished in the Constitution. The Constitution uses the word Chairman now Chairperson but that does not mean a woman can’t be appointed.

The PIL was dismissed with the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, ‘ we are not inclined to entertain such petition under Article 32 of the Constitution pf India.’