Mere statement that wife cannot cohabit with husband unless she brings amount without any action not harassment: BHC

Bombay High Court: In a criminal application filed under Section 482 ¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498-A ², 323 ³, 504 ⁴, 506 ⁵ read with Section 34 ⁶ of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as well as the proceedings therein, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Rohit W. Joshi, JJ., allowed the application while holding that the allegations were vague and the witness statements were copy pasted. The Court also rebuked the investigating authorities for the manner in which investigations are carried out in such cases.

Background

The accused-husband and complainant-wife got married as per Muslim rites. The wife contended that she was treated properly for about three months, but after that, all the accused persons, i.e., her in-laws, started taunting her regarding being from a village and not knowing how to cook.

She further contended that her husband and parents-in-law asked her to bring Rs.5,00,000 to make her husband’s employment permanent. Upon being told that her parents were poor and unable to give the amount, the husband and his parents told her that if she was unable to bring the amount, then she could not cohabit in the house. She was mentally and physically harassed and threatened with her life.

Allegedly, when the wife told her father about how she was being treated, her family visited and attempted to persuade the accused persons, but there was no settlement. After this, the accused persons intensified the harassment. Thus, an FIR was filed against the husband and his six family members.

Analysis

The Court noted that the wife had specifically stated that she was mentally and physically harassed on trifle domestic issues however, she did not give any details except the aforementioned taunting. The Court stated that all the seven persons could not taunt her at the same time.

Further, the Court noted that in the FIR, the wife did not mention why the married sister-in-law and her husband were residing in her marital house. In the normal course, the married sister-in-law and her husband would reside in their own marital home. The Court stated that in the addresses provided by the husband, the house of the sister-in-law and her husband was different. Similarly, the cousin brother’s house address was also different.

Regarding the allegation that the wife was harassed for money for her husband’s employment, the Court stated that the acts amounting to “physical and mental cruelty” were not provided in the complaint. The Court further stated that the statement ‘unless she brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation’ without any action would not amount to mental and physical harassment. The Court added that details regarding when the alleged demand was made, and for how long did the demand persist were not stated.

The Court stated that there were no details provided by the wife, and the allegations were vague, including information about when the police statement was made. Similarly, the witness statements mentioned the facts vaguely. Neither the details about the alleged cruelty were given, nor the date of the meeting between the families, nor the date when the wife came to the parental home were stated. The Court said that the witness statements were copy pasted, and the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) had made maximum use of the computer. Statements could not be copy pasted paragraph to paragraph without any difference in punctuation and fonts.

The Court noted that police officials were not investigating such cases in the manner that they were required to. They showed no sensitivity and did not adopt any proper procedure. The copy pasted statements were an example of non-application of mind by the IO, as he was supposed to apply his mind even while taking a statement under Section 161 ⁷ of CrPC.

The Court further noted that the police officials did not inquire the neighbours of the matrimonial home, and statements were always recorded of those witnesses who were either relatives of the wife or neighbours of her parents. The woman would disclose how she was being treated to her parents and relatives in the first place, and their statements would be important, but other possibilities and evidence were not considered by the IOs.

The Court added that the charge sheet did not need to be filed against all the persons who were named in the FIR and witness statements. The Court stated that the IO should consider that if the accused persons were residing in a faraway place, how would they be involved in the offence.

Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that the FIR was as vague as possible and did not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, it was a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC to avoid the unjust trial against the accused persons. Thus, the Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR as well as the proceedings arising from it.

[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No.3263 of 2023, decided on 10-01-2025]

*Judgment authored by- Justice Vibha Kankanwadi

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Pooja S. Ingle and S. J. Salunke

For the respondent: N. R. Dayama and A. L. Kanade