Abuse of process of law in matrimonial disputes, involving entire family members without specific allegations, and continuation of prosecution against relatives of the husband would amount to abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India r/w. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 are praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR vide Crime No. 594/2020 registered at Pathardi Police Station, Tal. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the charge-sheet No. 280/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathardi which culminated into R.C.C. No. 349/2022.

FACTS:

2.1 It is the case of respondent no. 2-informant in the FIR that the marriage between petitioner no. 6 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 19.11.2017. They have no issue from the said wedlock. After the marriage, the respondent no. 2 was treated well for hardly five to six days and thereafter her matrimonial family members had asked her to bring Rs. 7.00 lakhs from her parents for securing job for her husband at Nigmanand Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Nimgaon Mayamba, Tal. Shirur, District Beed. Thereupon, respondent no. 2 had informed them that her parents had spent huge amount in the marriage. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 and her husband i.e. petitioner no. 6 visited the maternal home of respondent no. 2 and sought financial aid.

2.2 It is further the case of respondent no. 2 in the FIR that, the father of respondent no. 2 fulfilled the part demand of money by giving cash amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and thereafter they left for their home in Nimgaon Mayamba, Tal. Shirur Kasar. On reaching matrimonial home, the petitioners told respondent no. 2 that her parents should have given Rs. 7.00 lakhs but they have given only Rs. 2.00 lakhs and started harassing her and she was further abused and beaten also. They further asked respondent no. 2 to bring remaining amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs from her parents.

2.3 It is further stated in the FIR that; the respondent no. 2 then informed her father over phone about further monetary demand of her husband and others. Thereafter, the father of respondent no. 2 transferred online an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh on 27.11.2017 and Rs. 4,000/- on 08.03.2018. Thereafter, on the following day i.e. on 09.03.2018, the father and brother of respondent no. 2 approached her matrimonial house and told the petitioners that they have helped as far as possible and now they don’t have money and requested the petitioners to cohabit respondent no. 2 with love and affection and returned to their home at Pathardi.

2.4 It is further the case of respondent no. 2 that on 03.12.2017, petitioner no. 6 i.e. her husband joined the duties as Teacher at the aforesaid School. Thereafter, for about four months, the respondent no. 2 was treated well and in the meanwhile the respondent no. 2 conceived. It is further stated in the FIR that thereafter the petitioners again started demanding Rs. 10.00 lakhs from her for purchasing dumper and building material. Thereupon, when respondent no. 2 replied them that her parents are unable to fulfill the demand and that they are finding financial difficulty, the respondent no. 2 was beaten up, abused, starved and harassed physically and mentally. Respondent no. 2 has further stated in the FIR that, she had informed about the said ill-treatment and harassment to her parents but her parents had advised her to wait as the things would get better. On request of parents, respondent no. 2 tolerated the said ill-treatment.

2.5 It is further stated in the FIR that, thereafter, petitioner no. 6, abused respondent no. 2 that he doesn’t like her, he got married with her only for the purpose of money and further asked her to abort a foetus as he has suspicion about fatherhood of said foetus. Further, on 28.04.2018, the petitioners said respondent no. 6 that she does not look good and they have performed the marriage of petitioner no. 6 with her only for money and showed disinclination to cohabit her. The petition