https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193907 The Court held that the appellant would not be tried for the offense under Section 498A, IPC as she did not qualify as a 'relative' under the section. However, the FIR was not entirely quashed due to allegations under Section 406, IPC concerning jewelry. The Court refrained from making a judgment on the Section 406 allegations at that stage, emphasizing the need for evidence. Protective measures were ordered for the appellant, allowing her to skip proceedings unless necessary and avoiding coercive action, with the possibility of bail if charges were framed. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:25:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193907 The Court held that the appellant would not be tried for the offense under Section 498A, IPC as she did not qualify as a 'relative' under the section. However, the FIR was not entirely quashed due to allegations under Section 406, IPC concerning jewelry. The Court refrained from making a judgment on the Section 406 allegations at that stage, emphasizing the need for evidence. Protective measures were ordered for the appellant, allowing her to skip proceedings unless necessary and avoiding coercive action, with the possibility of bail if charges were framed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193907