Article 142 - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...

Supreme Court Big Consumer Protection Verdict: Tenure, Transparency, and Tribunal Reforms

This Supreme Court judgment addresses the appointment process and tenure of members in State and District Consumer Commissions. It mandates judicial majority in selection committees and a five-year tenure, overturning previous rules. The Court also clarifies that written examinations are not required for judicial members, but are necessary for non-judicial members for both appointment and reappointment. Facts Of The Case: The genesis of this case lies in challenges to the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. Initially, the Bombay High Court struck down certain rules concerning eligibility criteri...

Supreme Court Says Depositors First, Banks Later in NSEL Scam Case: MPID Act Overrides SARFAESI

The Supreme Court ruled that the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors (MPID) Act 1999 prevails over the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Act 1993, denying secured creditors priority over assets attached under MPID. It also held that properties attached under MPID remain outside IBC moratorium, ensuring depositor claims take precedence over insolvency proceedings. The judgment reaffirms state legislative competence under List-II (State List) and upholds federalism by preventing central laws from overriding state-enacted investor protection measures. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the 2013 National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam, where around 13,000 investors lost approximately ₹5,600 crores due to payment defaults by trading members. NSEL, a commodit...