Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M. S. Karnik, Valmiki Menezes, JJ.
Shri Chetankumar Jain, s/o Late. Shri Vilas Jain and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Goa, Through Police Inspector, Women’s Cell, Panaji and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 112 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Anarkali A. Agni, Senior Advocate with Ms Afrin Harihar Khanm, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor, Ms Tejaswini Kole, Advocate with Mr Ashwin Naik, Advocate

Filing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed if the allegations are vague and do not demonstrate acts of cruelty as defined by law, particularly when linked to ongoing matrimonial disputes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC - Petition seeks to quash FIR on grounds of abuse of process, lack of specific allegations, and timelines indicating an ulterior motive from the Respondent - Petitioners contend the FIR was filed after divorce proceedings commenced, lacking substantive allegations of cruelty. (Paras 18, 20, 26, 30, 39)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers - High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 to quash FIRs to prevent abuse of process - Court must ensure that allegations do not constitute offences even if accepted at face value. (Paras 15, 27, 29)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, husband, and mother-in-law to be tried under IPC Section 498-A, claim wrongful filing of FIR alleging harassment after a series of matrimonial disputes culminating in divorce proceedings. Respondent claims mental cruelty but with vague allegations and no specific incidents cited. Petitioners argue that they were coerced by the Respondent using legal threats. (Paras 4, 6, 38)

Findings of Court:
Court finds no substantial evidence or concrete allegations warranting prosecution under Section 498-A IPC; the FIR was deemed an abuse of process linked to ongoing matrimonial disputes. (Paras 20, 39)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the FIR contained sufficient allegations of cruelty to constitute an offence under 498-A IPC and whether the FIR was abuse of process stemming from ongoing matrimonial disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that allegations in the FIR lacked specifics and were insufficient to establish an offence under Section 498-A IPC, indicating an ulterior motive from the Respondent as it was filed shortly after marital disagreements escalated. (Paras 29, 38)

Result: FIR No.8/22 dated 19.09.2022 quashed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and petition disposal mentioned. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts of the marriage and disputes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. complainant's counter-affidavit addressing allegations. (Para 7)
4. petitioner claims fir abuse; key arguments set out. (Para 8 , 9)
5. court evaluates preliminary objections on maintainability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. court findings based on existing records. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
7. analysis of section 498-a ipc. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
8. specific criteria for establishing cruelty. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
9. final decision quashing fir based on analysis. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki Menezes, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, the petition is disposed of finally.

2. This Criminal Writ Petition invokes our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also our inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The petition seeks the quashing of a First Information Report bearing No.8/22 dated 19.09.2022 filed by the Respondent No.3 before the Women’s Police Station, North Goa alleging an offence committed by the two Petitioners under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 IPC. After the petition was filed, a Charge-Sheet/Final Report came to be filed before the Magistrate bearing No.95/23/E dated June 2023 which was also challenged after the petition was amended.

3. The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Respondent No.3 Complainant. It is not in dispute that their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 01.05.2007 at Hyderabad after which the marriage was registered at Nagpur, Maharashtra on 26.02.2020. It is also not in dispute that a son was born to the couple, who is now around 15 years old.

Petitioner No.2 is the mother of the Petitioner No.1 aged about 66 years.

4. According to the Petitioner, immediately after the marriage, the Respondent No.3 displayed mentally unstable, impulsive, abnormal and rude behaviour prompting the Petitioner to express that he wanted to part ways with the Respondent No.3, but at the behest of his wife, the Petitioner decided to wait and watch the situation. The Petitioner alleges that due to the behaviour of the Respondent, he could not concentrate on his work, suffered losses professionally and was put through mental and physical torture, developing blood pressure ailments. It is further alleged that the Respondent No.3 would force the Petitioner No.2 to do all household work and purchase groceries despite her age and indifferent health.

It is further stated that Petitioner No.1 in the year 2021 relocated from Maharashtra to Goa, though Petitioner No.2 continued to reside at Nagpur. Along with the Petitioner No.1, their minor child and the Respondent No.3 accompanied the Petitioner to Goa and they started living together at a rented premises at Merces. It is further alleged that even after relocation, their relationship spiralled out of control and the Petitioner decided to separate from the Respondent No.3 after communicating the same to her, the Respondent No.3 left their Merces flat and went back to Nagpur, leaving their minor child in the care of the Petitioner No.1 who continued to reside in the Merces flat in Goa till 14.09.2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 and his son shifted to an apartment at Dona Paula, Goa on 30.11.2021.

5. It is further alleged in the petition that after shifting to Dona Paula, the Respondent No.3 trespassed and forcibly entered the Dona Paula apartment which belonged to the Petitioner’s company, and occupied one room therein, where she would run tuition classes. It is alleged that since the said company took serious objection to the conduct of the Respondent No.3, the Petitioner requested Respondent No.3 to vacate the said room, and as a counter to the request, the said Respondent would threaten to file a false criminal complaint against the Petitioner and his mother. It is stated that on account of these threats, t