Bombay High Court: The present application was filed for quashing FIR dated 20-10-2023 registered with Police Station, Ambajogai, Beed and by way of an amendment for quashing proceedings in a case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Beed (‘the ASJ’), for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A1, 376(1)2, 377, 4063, 3544, 3235, 5006, 5067 read with Section 348 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., opined that Respondent 2 with some ulterior motive was levelling allegations against brothers-in-law, uncles, and aunt of her husband, thereby taking vindictive attitude. The Court opined that instigation, or common intention could not be the basis on which the offence under Section 498-A of IPC could be proved, therefore, the Court held that the proceedings pending before the ASJ stands quashed and set aside against the said relatives of Respondent 2’s husband.
Background
In the present case, at the time of talks which took place for marriage settlement at the house of Applicant 1, Respondent 2 made allegations against her husband regarding offence under Section 377 of IPC. Respondent 2 had stated that when she had informed about the said acts to the applicants-other accused persons, that is, her sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and husband’s uncles and aunt, they did not support her and threatened her that she should behave the way her husband wanted to, otherwise she should take divorce.
Respondent 2 stated that after marriage, she went to stay with her husband in Pune, where she came to know that her husband was not earning at all. On 20-2-2023, she came to her matrimonial home and at that time also, she told her grievances against her husband regarding unnatural offence, to applicants, but later she was abused and assaulted by her husband. She further stated that she was defamed by her husband by saying that she was a person of third gender. Respondent 2 submitted that applicants conspired to show that she was mentally unstable and thus took her to the doctor. Further, she stated that on 22-2-2023, the applicants made her naked to check her genital and on objecting the same, she was assaulted.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that if such heinous act was done to her, it was for her to immediately approach the police, but she lodged FIR only on 20-10-2023, that is, after about 8 months. The Court noted that Respondent 2 did not state that she had immediately informed her parents about the same and she even alleged that she was intentionally taken to a gynecologist on 14-3-2023. The Court further noted that she had also alleged that the doctor, after examining her, stated that there was no physical fault in her, but all the accused said that they had brought Respondent 2 to prepare false documents.
The Court considered the documents from the doctor, to which Respondent referred to, and opined that the grievance before the said doctor was different and it reflected the presence of her along with her husband only. The Court noted that the doctor was told that there were quarrels between husband and Respondent 2, because of which they were getting headache, suspicion over another and it was also affecting their physical relations. It was also stated that financial condition in the matrimonial home was not sound compared to her parental home and, therefore, she was having difficulty in adjusting herself. The Court found that the doctor gave a couple counseling and to relax and remove stress, he gave medicines and there was no such document which would show that Respondent 2 was declared or considered to be a mentally challenged person.
The Court stated that such allegations could not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC as each person should act in his own way and the said act independently should amount to cruelty. The Court opined that instigation, or common intention could not be the basis on which the offence under Section 498-A of IPC could be proved.
The Court opined that Respondent 2 with some ulterior motive was levelling allegations against brothers-in-law and uncles, and aunt of her husband, thereby taking vindictive attitude. The Court opined that it would be unjust to ask the applicants to face the trial. The Court thus held that the proceedings pending before the ASJ stands quashed and set aside against Applicants 2, 4 and 6 to 9 and the criminal application stood disposed of as withdrawn, after disinclination, as against Applicants 1, 3, and 5.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 423, decided on 21-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: Advocate Ashwini A. Lomte;
For the Respondents: APP R.P. Gour for Respondent 1; Advocate V.A. Sayyed for Respondent 2.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
3. Section 316(2) of BNS, 2023
5. Section 115(2) of BNS, 2023
6. Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023