Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 372

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. CHANDURKAR, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Nikheelchandra Anil Zode – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 2762, 2763 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: S.R. Nargolkar, Arjun Kadam, Neeta Patil.
For the Respondents: Sagar Kasar, Amol Wagh, Chaitali Bhogle, Namdeo Laxman Tarade.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice when the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186, 342, 353, 498A, 506 - The court analyzed the FIR and found that the allegations did not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused under the mentioned sections. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner-Husband sought quashing of FIR filed by Respondent No. 2-Wife, alleging offences under Sections 186, 342, 353, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on a matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not satisfy the ingredients of the mentioned sections and amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations in the FIR and whether they constituted offences under the mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the guidelines laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal to determine whether the allegations in the FIR constituted offences under the mentioned sections. The court found that the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of the sections and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the court directed the quashing of the FIR registered with the Tasgaon Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 353, 342, 186, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA JAIN, J.

1. With consent, heard finally at the admission stage. These two writ petitions are heard together since both are based on same cause of action and are therefore disposed of by common order. Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2023 is filed by the Petitioner-Husband seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) dated 9th July 2023 filed against him by Respondent No. 1 on a complaint from Respondent No. 2-Wife. Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2023 is filed by the relatives being mother, brother and sister of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2023 praying for quashing of the very same FIR filed against them.

2. Facts relating to Writ Petition No. 2762 of 2023 are discussed for adjudication of the issue raised before the Court.

3. Narrative of relevant events:

(i) The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are husband and wife, who are married since February 2018. They met each other through “Jeevansathi” matrimonial site. Petitioner is working as Provident Fund Commissioner at Pune and Respondent No. 2 is a judicial officer presently at Tasgaon Court.

(ii) It is alleged in the FIR by Respondent No. 2 that after marriage, the Petitioner refused to have a conjugal relationship with her. There were various matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner, his family and Respondent No. 2. The matrimonial dispute seeking decree of divorce is filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 2 before the Court of Civil Judge at Navi Mumbai in the year 2023. The said divorce matter is pending as of today.

(iii) In the FIR dated 9th July 2023, it is recorded that on 7th June 2023 at 10.30 a.m. the Petitioner and his brother entered the Chambers of Respondent No. 2 and threatened her to sign mutual consent divorce petition. It is also recorded that the Petitioner informed her that he has sought necessary permission from the Court adjudicating the divorce matter so as to enable Respondent No. 2 to appear through Video-Conferencing for the purpose of mutual consent decree for divorce.

(iv) The Respondent No. 2 further stated in the FIR that the Petitioner pulled her and made her to sit on the chair to sign the divorce papers, despite knowing that Respondent No. 2 was getting late to discharge her official duty. The Respondent No. 2 further stated that since she did not want to convey a wrong message at the place where she is working, she called her peon and sat on dias for discharging her duties.

(v) On the same day i.e. on 7th June 2023 in the afternoon at 2.45 p.m. she sat on the dias to discharge her official duties, at which time, she was informed by her peon that her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are sitting in her Chambers. The Respondent No. 2 immediately rose from Court and proceeded towards her Chamber. The Respondent No. 2 further stated that she tried to explain her mother-in-law and sister-in-law that the topic of divorce can be discussed after the Court hours since she was busy in discharging her official duties in the afternoon. It is stated by Respondent No. 2 that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law directed Respondent No. 2 to sign the papers and till that does not happen, they will not leave the office of Respondent No. 2. However, Respondent No. 2 called the security officer to take her in-laws out of the chambers.

(vi) The Respondent No. 2 further stated in the FIR that this incident was informed by her to her superior in the evening. This resulted in Respondent No. 2 being frightened and from that day onwards thoughts of committing suicide started coming in her mind. The Respondent No. 2 further stated that from 2018 till February 2023, she was in regular touch with Petitioner on WhatsApp, phone, etc. since both of them were serving at different places. The Respondent No. 2 further stated that she had celebrated valentine’s day in Hotel Taj, Pune in February 2023 and she also spent time with the Petitioner and his friends in Lonavala.

(vii) The Respondent No. 2 further stated that it has come to her