High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} cwp1071-24.docdrpIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1071 OF 2024Tejas Shashikant Vaishnav and Others PETITIONERSVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and Another RESPONDENTS.......Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the PetitionersMr. S. J. Salgare, APP for Respondent No.1 - State Mr. J. S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.2....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. J.] DATE : 18 th JUNE, 2025 ORDER :1.This Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India, read with section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code, seeks quashing of FIR bearing No. 0109 of 2024dated 17th March, 2024 registered with Pachora Police Station,District – Jalgaon for the offence punishable under sections 498A,323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by RespondentNo.2.2.Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is father inlaw, petitioner No.3 is mother in law and Petitioner No.4 isbrother in law of the informant – Respondent No.2. {2} cwp1071-24.doc3.The second Respondent has lodged the FIR alleging that,her marriage was performed with Petitioner No.1 on 25th July,2022 at Shirdi. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial house forcohabitation with her husband in his house, where all thepetitioners were residing together. She was in service at Puneand was doing up and down from Sangmner to Pune. Petitionersstarted harassing her on the ground that proper treatment wasnot given to them in the marriage and her parents have notgiven 5 tola gold chain to Petitioner No.1. When she expressedher inability to bring the gold chain, Petitioners used to harassher. Petitioner No.3 demanded that she should hand over hersalary to her. Petitioners used to abuse her and Petitioners No.2to 4 used to instigate Petitioner No.1 to beat her. On theirinstigation, Petitioner No.1 used to beat her with slaps and fists.Many times, no food was given to her and she was required tosleep empty stomach. When she disclosed these facts to herparents, they along with relatives came to Sangamner on 16thNovember, 2023. When her family members asked Petitionersabout the harassment, they told that no proper treatment wasgiven to them in the marriage and 5 tola gold chain is not givento Petitioner No.1 and she is not handing over her salary inhouse. Family members of Respondent No.2 were abused anddrove away from the house. Petitioners demanded 5 told gold {3} cwp1071-24.docchain from her and also put a condition that she will have tohand over the salary received by her to them. 4.Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners, learnedAdvocate for Respondent No.2 and learned APP for RespondentNo.1 – State.5.After arguing for some time on merits, when this Court wasnot inclined to grant relief, learned Advocate for the Petitioners,on instructions seeks permission to withdraw the Petition to theextent of Petitioners No.1 and 3 (husband and mother in law ofthe second Respondent). Permission granted. Criminal WritPetition, to the extent of Petitioners No.1 and 3 is dismissed aswithdrawn.6.It is necessary to mention here that on 16th November,2023, sister of the second Respondent had lodged complaint,which was registered at NC No. 1530 of 2023 with SangamnerPolice Station for offences punishable under section 504 and 506of the Indian Penal Code, against the Petitioners. It is alleged inthe said complaint that marriage of the second Respondent wasperformed with Petitioner No.1 one and half year back and she isbeing ill-treated and there are family disputes betweenPetitioners and the second Respondent. However, no complaintwas given in that behalf. On 16th November, 2023, when the {4} cwp1071-24.doccomplainant, along with her relatives went to matrimonial homeof the second Respondent, Petitioners did not permit them toenter their house and threatened them. Perusal of this complaintalso reveals that allegations as are made in the FIR in questionare not made in this Complaint.7.Law, on the point of quashing of complaint under section498-A of the Indian Penal Code, against family members /relatives of wife is well settled. While laying down this law, theApex Court has made certain pertinent observations in “PreetiGupta V/s State of Jharkhand”1. The Apex Court has observedas follows :“30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunatelymatrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All thecourts in our country including this Court are flooded withmatrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrestin the family life of a large number of people of the society.31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanatingfrom Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under:498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a womansubjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or therelative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman tocruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term whichmay extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.1(2010) 7 SCC 667 {5} cwp1071-24.docExplanation.- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'means:(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likelyto drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause graveinjury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental orphysical) of the woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is witha view to coercing her or any person related to her to meetany unlawful demand for any property or valuable securityor is on account of failure by her or any person related to herto meet such demand.32. It is a matter of common experience that most of thesecomplaints Under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code are filed in theheat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.We come across a large number of such complaints which are noteven bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time,rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassmentare also a matter of serious concern.33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous socialresponsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of familylife is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggeratedversions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminalcomplaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on theiradvice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Barwho belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditionsand should treat every complaint Under Section 498-A as a basichuman problem and must make serious endeavour to help theparties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem.They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to {6} cwp1071-24.docensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remainsintact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that onecomplaint should not lead to multiple cases.34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint theimplications and consequences are not properly visualized by thecomplainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountableharassment, agony and pain to the complainant, Accused and hisclose relations.35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punishthe guilty and protect the innocent To find out the truth is aherculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency ofimplicating husband and all his immediate relations is also notuncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it isdifficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremelycareful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must takepragmatic realities into consideration while dealing withmatrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's closerelations who had been living in different cities and never visited orrarely visited the place where the complainant resided would havean entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaintare required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.36.Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trialslead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongstthe parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in casesfiled by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relationshad to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chancesof amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering isextremely long and painful”.8.Bare perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet reveals that, {7} cwp1071-24.docallegations levelled against against father in law and brother inlaw are vague, general and sweeping, without specifying anyinstance of criminal conduct. It is required to be noted here that,in the FIR, no specific date or time of alleged offcence committedby them is disclosed. It appears that they are implicated in thepresent crime out of personal grudge and only with a view topressurize husband and with ulterior motive of wreckingvengeance. Taking into consideration the allegations made in theFIR and the material collected during the investigation and theattending circumstances of the case emerging from the record,we are of the considered view that no ingredient of offencepunishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is madeout against father in law and brother in law. It appears from therecord that the second Respondent was staying at Pune, as shewas in service there. Record further indicates that PetitionerNo.4, brother in law of the second Respondent is in service atPune, since the year 2018 onwards and he is residing at differentplace. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to ill-treat thesecond Respondent.9.Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has rightly placedreliance on the judgment in “Achin Gupta V/s State ofHaryana and Another” 2024 (6) SCR 129. {8} cwp1071-24.doc10.The ratio in “Achin Gupta” (supra), supports the case ofthe Petitioners No.2 and 4. 11.For the aforestated reasons, the petition deserves to beallowed. Hence, the following order:ORDERA.Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayerclause “B-1”. Proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.782 of 2024 pending before Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Pachora to the extent of Petitioner No.2( Shashikant Iswardas Vaishnav) and Petitioner No.4(Shreyas Shashikant Vaishnav) are quashed and setaside. [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGEJUDGE drp/cwp1071-24.doc