Bombay High Court: In a peculiar case, wherein a Respondent 3 (“Wife”) had registered an FIR against her in-laws under Sections 498-A1, 4062, 3233, 5044, and 5065 read with 346 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), without a single charge against her husband, the petitioners sought the quashing of the same. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., found that the allegations against the petitioners were quite general and vague., and in fact, some of the incidents listed in the FIR were against her husband and not wife. The Court noted the history of civil litigation between the instant respondent couple and the petitioners, and found that all the litigations involved property disputes, and observed that the FIR disclosed a proxy litigation engaged by the husband through wife, to settle the property dispute with his family. Therefore, the Court stated without hesitation that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners, and quashed the FIR registered against them by wife and her husband.
Background
The petitioners were the in-laws of Respondent 3 (‘Wife’), who were accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. What was peculiar about the case was that she had not made a single allegation against her husband. The petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered against them by Wife and her husband, and also, sought quashing of the final report filed by the police before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court at Kurla, Mumbai (“Magistrate”).
The wife alleged that the petitioners began to quarrel on petty issues with the husband, to drive them out of the house, and that they were abused on trivial matters. The list of accounts of ill-treatment included not allowing her to use the kitchen, domestic appliances, the terrace or the garden, practicing black magic on her, making offensive remarks on her relatives, restraining the access to domestic help, amongst others. One incident of being beaten up by the petitioners was also quoted by her. She further listed twelve other cases filed by her and the husband against the petitioners for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of IPC, at the RCF Police Station, and two others filed at Worli Police Station.
In 2013, the (deceased) father-in-law (petitioner 1) had transferred most of his assets to the other petitioners through a Gift Deed.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court referred to the view adopted by the Supreme Court while dealing with nature of cases similar to the instant case, and referred to Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, wherein it was held, “the phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC 6 599, the allegations made by the complainant wife against her in-laws, under Section 498-A and others, were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The Court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused in-laws and noted that such a situation left unchecked would result in the abuse of process of law.”
The Court further referred to Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, the Supreme Court observed, “whenever an accused comes before the Court to get the FIR or criminal proceedings quashed on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for weaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
The Court perused the instant FIR and the chargesheet and found that the allegations against the petitioners were quite general and vague. The wife had given a list of incidents of cruelty in the FIR, however, the same did not fulfil the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC; in fact, some of the incidents listed therein were against the husband and not wife.
The Court noted the history of civil litigation between the instant respondent couple and the petitioners, and found that all the litigations involved property disputes, and observed that the FIR disclosed a proxy litigation engaged by the husband through wife, to settle the property dispute with his family. The challenge to the Gift Deed executed by his father in the instant FIR exposed the husband’s intention. The Court stated that the instant FIR was nothing, but a shot fired by the husband from his wife’s shoulders to espouse his own interest in the father’s property.
The Court further noted that the entire law enforcement machinery was set in motion by wife only on the behest of her husband. Therefore, the Court stated without hesitation that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioners.
The Court referred to Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759, wherein the Supreme Court had stated, “the authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice…It would be an abuse of process of the court of any action resulting in injustice and preventing promotion of justice was allowed…The court is justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that the initiation or continuation of it amounts to abuse of process of court, or the quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.”
Considering the abovementioned, the Court opined that the impugned FIR was a complete abuse of process of law and that the police machinery had been used for realising private interest of wife and her husband. The present case was a classic example of gross abuse of Section 498-A of IPC.
Therefore, the Court quashed the FIR registered against the petitioners, and the final report before the Magistrate.
[Darrshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2232, decided on 18-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Ashish Mishra, Advocate
For the respondents: Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP
1. Corresponding Section 85 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)
5. Section 351(2) and (3) of BNS
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
