‘Husband’s inability to cohabit is a condition known to him and does not travel beyond home’; Bombay HC quashes FIR against husband’s relatives

Bombay High Court: The present application was filed by Applicant 1-the complainant’s husband, with a prayer to quash FIR registered against applicants under Sections 489-A¹, 417², 506³, and 34⁴ of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) in Vijapur Naka police station, Solapur and it was further prayed to issue direction to the said Police Station to stay the investigation and not to file charge sheet till deciding of the present application. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., allowed the application to the extent of Applicants 5 to 8, being maternal uncles and their wives, but rejected it to the extent of Applicants 1 to 4, stating that there were grave and serious allegations against them. The Court opined that Applicant 1’s relatives could not have had the knowledge of his condition of being unable to develop physical relations with the complainant, because such condition normally was known to the person himself, and such information does not travel beyond the home.

In the present case, a FIR was registered with the Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur (City), which indicated that Applicants 5 to 8, who were maternal uncles and their wives, of Applicant 1, desired that the complainant should marry Applicant 1-the complainant’s husband. The complainant’s grievance was that Applicant 1 was unable to develop physical relations with her and suffered from a medical condition, which was known to his uncles and their wives.

The Court opined that whether Applicant 1 was unable to develop physical relations and whether he had a deficiency by which he was unable to cohabit, was a condition which normally was known to the person himself, and such information does not travel beyond the home and sometimes, even the nearest relatives also do not know or notice.

The Court stated that the complainant did not submit that she was compelled and coerced by Applicants 5 to 8 to get married to Applicant 1, but her contention was that they were keen that marriage should be solemnized between them. The Court noted that there were grave allegations against Applicants 1 to 4, complainant’s in-laws regarding the atrocities committed by them, which compelled the complainant to approach the Police Station. The Court also noted the complainant’s submission that though she resided in her marital home for about two years, there was no cohabitation between her and Applicant 1, and he avoided her and could not develop physical relations with her.

The Court, after considering the allegations of alleged physical torture, harassment, demand for dowry and Applicant 1 being unable to develop physical relations, opined that Applicants 5 to 8 were only instrumental in introducing the proposal of Applicant 1 to the complainant and it could not be said that they had the knowledge of Applicant 1’s condition.

The Court relied on Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, (2020) 3 SCC 317; Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35; State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty, (2022) 16 SCC 703 and opined that the High Court could not indulge in a fact-finding exercise while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482⁵ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

The Court opined that this Court was not expected to assess whether any offence could be proved in the trial and whether there were any chances of the accused getting an acquittal. The Court stated that if an offence was made out in the allegations in the FIR, all other attending circumstances could be considered by the trial Court and if this Court finds that an offence made out against a particular accused would require a trial, this Court was not expected to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Court thus partly allowed the present application and quashed the FIR to the extent of Applicants 5 to 8. The Court, in relation to Applicants 1 to 4, opined that there were grave and serious allegations against them and the offence registered was triable and if proved, it was punishable in the light of Sections 498-A, 417, and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Thus, the Court rejected the application to the extent of Applicants 1 to 4.

[XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 1351 of 2023, decided on 03-01-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Applicants: V. R. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants

For the Respondents: P. N. Dabholkar, APP for State; Vishwanath Patil a/w. Nidhi Chauhan, Akshay Naidu, Advocates for Respondent 2.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE