[S. 498-A] ‘In-laws asking daughter-in-law to show them the house cleaned by her on video call is a sadist manner of ill-treatment’; Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR

Bombay High Court: Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR dated 01-06-2023 registered with the Tilak Nagar Police Station, Brihanmumbai City for offences punishable under Sections 498-A¹, 406², 504³ and 34⁴ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the consequent charge-sheet and criminal proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli, Mumbai. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., opined that the act to compel the complainant to show the house cleaned by her on WhatsApp video call was a sadist manner of ill-treatment. The Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings, as the allegations in the FIR, prima facie disclosed commission of the alleged offences.

The complainant married Petitioner 1 and started residing at the matrimonial home along with him and her father-in-law, Petitioners 1 and 2, respectively. The complainant stated that the three sisters-in-law, i.e., Petitioners 3, 4, and 5, although residing in their separate houses, interfered in the household of Petitioner 1, like, her sisters-in-law deliberately removed the house help from Petitioner 1’s house and directed the complainant to do all the household work herself. They directed her to show them via WhatsApp video call the house as cleaned by her and persistently directed her by text messages regarding what she should make for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They made a WhatsApp group comprising of all petitioners where, they used to berate the complainant and complained about her to Petitioner 1. Even Petitioner 1 abused her, dug up quarrels on petty issues, suspected her character and even abused her. He also refused to have conjugal relations with the complainant on the pretext that he was diabetic.

One day, all three sisters-in-law came to Petitioner 1’s house and abused the complainant in filthy language and asked her to leave the house, demanded gifts, etc. from her parents and drove her out of the house. It was stated that they retained all the jewellery comprising the complainant’s ‘stridhan’ and refused to return the same. Thus, the complainant registered the FIR.

The Court noted that the complainant was pitted against the might of petitioners, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues and their sole aim appeared to be to extort money from her and her parents. The Court observed that even after driving the complainant out of the matrimonial home, they had refused to hand over her ‘stridhan’ comprising of valuable jewellery and her articles.

The Court opined that the allegations against the sisters-in-law pertaining to compelling the complainant to show them the house cleaned by her on WhatsApp video call was a sadistic manner of ill-treatment. The Court stated that such acts were enough to cause apprehension in the mind of the complainant that there was danger to her life and limb at the hands of petitioners.

The Court relied on Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685, and opined that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court must not conduct a mini trial at the time of hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of the FIR.

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, prima facie disclosed commission of the alleged offences. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings.

[Hardik Prakash Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2441, decided on 22-07-2024]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners: Vrushabh Savla, Counsel

For the Respondents: V. N. Sagare, APP; Prerak P. Chaudhary, Counsel