"Copy-Paste" Policing: Bombay High Court Slams Investigation Quality in Matrimonial Dispute

In a stinging rebuke to current investigative practices, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has quashed a criminal FIR and subsequent proceedings that originated from a domestic dispute. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi exercised their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), emphasizing that criminal processes cannot be used as a tool for harassment when the allegations lack transparency, specificity, and factual foundation.

A Marriage Gone Sour: The Background

The matter concerned a marriage solemnized on June 24, 2022, between the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife. According to the complaint filed against the husband and his relatives—including parents, brother, sister, and brother-in-law—the relationship remained cordial for only three months. The informant alleged physical and mental harassment, including demands for ₹5,00,000 for her husband's professional advancement.

However, the Court noted that the FIR, lodged on July 24, 2023, was conspicuously bereft of dates, specific incidents, or locations of the alleged cruelty. Furthermore, it identified that the accused included family members who did not even reside in the same household, casting doubt on the veracity of the sweeping accusations.

Court’s Critique of Investigative Indolence

The bench took significant issue with the mechanical manner in which the investigation was conducted. Justice Kankanwadi, writing for the bench, highlighted that the witness statements appeared to be "copy-pasted," noting that the phrases were identical even in punctuation and font.

The Court was particularly critical of the failure of the investigating officer to apply their mind. The judgment suggested that there was a total lack of sensitivity and procedure, with officers opting to record statements only from the wife’s relatives while ignoring the surrounding context of the matrimonial home.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement and complainants regarding the requirements for sustainable criminal charges:

> "The statements of the witnesses are copy paste and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons."

> "There is no sensitivity that is shown, nor proper procedure is adopted. Statements in the nature of copy paste is the example of non application of mind by the investigating officer."

> "In the present case, the FIR is as vague as possible and it is not disclosing the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code."

> "Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Observing that the FIR failed the basic litmus test of legal specificity, the High Court allowed the application. The bench ordered the quashing of the FIR and all connected proceedings in R.C.C. No. 350 of 2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod.

This ruling reinforces the principle that trial courts are not mere conduits for police charge-sheets. It underscores the judiciary's responsibility to protect citizens from "unjust trials" when the prosecution's case is constructed upon vague assertions and poor investigatory craftsmanship. For legal professionals, this case acts as a reminder that the inherent power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law remains a vital safeguard for the integrity of the criminal justice system.