2025:BHC-AS:51412-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2021 Mackenzie Michael Dcruz and others … Petitioners vs.

The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents Mr. Ashley Cusher for petitioners.

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. Amol Anbhule, PSI, Manikpur Police Station, District Palghar.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 26^th NOVEMBER, 2025 P.C. :

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

2. The respondent No.2, despite service, has chosen not to appear before this Court.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.0391 of 2019 registered at Manikpur Police Station, District Palghar, for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioners also pray for quashing of chargesheet filed after completion of investigation and also, for quashing of R.C.C. No.365 of 2021 pending before the Court of Magistrate.

4. The respondent No.2 (first informant) is the wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the first informant, while petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are her sisters-in-law. Petitioner No.6 is the husband of petitioner No.5 and petitioner No.7 is the husband of P K R A I M YA BLI DbKD21+ 01 yA i a 0 g 2: tM 5 P 1 i e5 t 3 R 6 : a B . 0 1: Il 1 LY 1 y 0 IA . 2 s 7 igned petitioner No.3. It is evident that the near relatives of petitioner No.1-husband, have all been arraigned as accused by respondent No.2 in the subject FIR.

5. The offences in the present case concern alleged cruelty by husband and his relatives as also, alleged criminal breach of trust on their part along with other minor offences.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the criminal proceedings have arisen out of disputes, essentially due to matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 (husband) and respondent No.2 (wife). It is submitted that both the husband and wife are educated and well off. But, due to differences in their marital life, various unpleasant incidents occurred. It is submitted that a colour of criminality is unnecessarily sought to be given by respondent No.2 to the matrimonial disputes and since the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are not made out, this Court may consider allowing the petition.

7. It is emphasized that both the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have been residing in United Kingdom (UK) from the years 2009-2010. In the year 2016/2018, both of them became citizens of UK. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.2 herself filed application for divorce before the competent Court at Liverpool, UK, on 11.07.2018 and subsequently, on 09.12.2018, petitioner No.1 filed such divorce application, which ultimately stood allowed by order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Family Court at Liverpool, UK. It is submitted that therefore, since December 2019, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are no longer husband and wife.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the statement of respondent No.2, which led to registration of FIR. It was submitted that the said statement refers to alleged incidents that took place from the time the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 got married in the year 2002. Even if the allegations made in the said statement of respondent No.2, are to be taken on their face value, the offences as alleged against the petitioners, are not made out. He submits that the FIR has been registered obviously as a counterblast to the perception of respondent No.2 that she has been harassed by petitioner No.1 and his relatives. It is submitted that since the ingredients of the offences are not made out, this Court may consider quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings.

9. The learned APP referred to the statements recorded during the course of investigation and submitted that such statements appear to be in line with the allegations, that u