The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a criminal application seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a husband and his family members, including his father, mother, and brother, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was filed by the wife, alleging matrimonial cruelty and harassment for dowry.
The couple married in 2012 and has two children. Initially, the wife alleged good treatment for the first six months, but later claimed harassment and a demand for ₹2 lakhs to purchase a truck. The allegations extended to her in-laws, who allegedly supported the husband’s demand and mistreated her. The wife filed a domestic violence complaint in 2019, which was later settled in October 2020. However, she filed another complaint in March 2021, leading to the registration of the present FIR.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Sufficiency of General Allegations: Whether general and vague allegations without specific instances can sustain charges of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC.
2. Repetitive Complaints: Whether a repetitive complaint, making similar allegations that were previously withdrawn, can be entertained to initiate a fresh criminal proceeding.
3. Misuse of Legal Provisions: Whether the present FIR was an abuse of the legal process aimed at harassing the accused family members by making broad and unsubstantiated allegations.
Arguments and Observations
For the Applicants: The advocate representing the applicants argued that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet were filed on vague and repetitive grounds. He pointed out that the initial domestic violence complaint filed in 2019 was settled amicably, and the wife returned to her matrimonial home. However, within five months of the settlement, a similar complaint was made, alleging harassment over dowry, without specific instances or concrete evidence. He contended that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent and should be quashed.
For the Respondents: The advocates representing the State and the wife argued that the allegations clearly demonstrated a pattern of harassment and cruelty. They emphasized that the settlement in 2019 did not resolve the issues, as the wife was again subjected to mistreatment soon after returning.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi found that the allegations made in the FIR were vague, general, and lacked particulars. Citing landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), the Court reiterated that mere repetition of generic allegations in a matrimonial dispute, without substantiation, cannot justify criminal charges.
The Court observed:
“It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Such complaints, if not bona fide, can cause insurmountable harassment and pain to the accused and their close relations.”
The Court further emphasized the Supreme Court’s warning against entertaining complaints with “general omnibus allegations” aimed at implicating the entire family of the husband, as this would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Key Observations of the Court
– Insufficient Evidence: The Court noted that despite allegations of a ₹2 lakh demand for dowry, there was no evidence or specific date provided to substantiate the claim. The FIR lacked concrete details to establish cruelty under Section 498A.
– Misuse of Provisions: Referring to Sushilkumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Court stated that the provisions of Section 498-A, though aimed at curbing dowry harassment, should not be misused as a “legal terrorism” tool against the husband’s family.
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and the pending charge sheet to the extent of the applicants. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice.
– Case Number: Criminal Application No. 115 of 2023.
– Bench: Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi.
– Lawyers:
– For Applicants: Advocate on behalf of the accused.
– For Respondent-Wife: Advocate for the wife.
– For State: Advocate for the State.
