Bombay High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh S Patil, J., quashed and set aside the FIR and the proceedings thereto, on the ground that the allegations made, and the evidence collected is not prima facie sufficient, to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. As far as Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, unless the other offences are proven to amount to “cruelty”, offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to face the trial.
The informant (Respondent No. 2) lodged a report with the police that she has been harassed mentally and physically by her husband and in laws. There are categorical allegations pertaining to demand of dowry, money for buying a car and forcing to reproduce a son and like.
On the allegations levelled by the informant that she was treated like a maid servant, the Court noted that if a married lady is asked to do household work definitely for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a servant.
The Court further remarked that if she had no wish to do her household activities, then she ought to have told it either prior to the marriage so that the bride-groom can rethink about the marriage itself or if it is after marriage, then such problem ought to have been sorted out earlier.
On the contention put forth by the applicants that the FIR appears to be a concocted version as it was the second marriage of wife wherein charges of similar nature were filed which eventually culminated in divorce, the Court noted that the previous complaints/applications against the first husband and his family members, does not mean that she is in a habit of levelling such allegations and extracting money until and unless proven by cogent and reliable evidence by the applicants.
On the contention by the applicants that there was demand of Rs. 4,00,000/- for purchasing four-wheeler and she was subjected to mental and physical harassment, the Court noted that there are details which are missing and lacking as mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” are not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. Unless those acts are described it cannot be concluded whether those acts amounted to harassment or subjecting a person to cruelty.
On the further contention regarding that she got medically checked through doctor, at the instance of her in-laws, for demand of birth of a son, the Court observed that on perusal of medical documents placed before the Court, it is clear that she was rather referred for her gynecological problem relating to cyst in the ovaries, implying that she was not pregnant at all, and the allegations are baseless.
Thus, the Court held that the allegations made and evidence placed is not sufficient, at this prima facie stage, to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Further as regards offence under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, it is in fact already conferred under Section 498-A IPC and unless those other offences are shown which would amount to “cruelty”, offence under Section 498-A IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to face the trial.
[Sarang Diwakar Amle v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 40 of 2021, decided on 21-10-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sagar Bhingare, Advocate for the Applicants;
Mr. S.J. Salgare, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. S.S. Khoche, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. S.B. Solanke, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. (Appointed)
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.
