The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed an FIR lodged by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of cruelty and other offences, deeming it a retaliatory act in a matrimonial dispute.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the delay in filing the FIR, along with the absence of specific incidents supporting the allegations, suggested it was a counterblast.
“The FIR was lodged on 9th July 2023 which is almost after a month. It is stated that due to seriousness of the matter and as the incident had occurred at the workplace, the Respondent No.2 avoided to give the report. This aspect when considered cumulatively with all other aspects goes to show that the FIR is lodged only as a counter blast to the matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.”
The court upheld two writ petitions filed by the complainant’s husband and his relatives, seeking to quash an FIR dated July 9, 2023.
The couple, who met through a matrimonial website, married in February 2018. The husband is a Provident Fund Commissioner in Pune, while the wife serves as a judicial officer at the Tasgaon Court.
The FIR claimed that after their marriage, several matrimonial disputes emerged, leading the husband to file for divorce in 2023. The complainant alleged that on June 7, 2023, her husband and his brother entered her judicial chambers in the morning, pressuring her to sign mutual consent divorce papers. When she refused, other family members allegedly repeated the act in the afternoon, obstructing her from carrying out her official duties.
The FIR was registered under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant in the discharge of duties), 342 (wrongful confinement), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty), 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. As a result, the husband and his relatives sought relief from the High Court.
The court noted that the incidents outlined in the FIR did not meet the criteria to constitute the alleged offences. It stated that the morning incident did not amount to obstructing the wife, a judicial officer, from performing her public duties.
The court also observed that in the afternoon, the complainant voluntarily left the dais after being informed by her peon about her relatives’ presence in her chambers. Since the relatives remained in the chambers while the complainant was in the court hall, no obstruction occurred. Furthermore, she continued to carry out her official duties that day, further affirming that no hindrance took place, the court concluded.
The court stated that the FIR did not suggest any physical confinement of the wife. While the husband and his relatives verbally pressured her to sign the divorce papers, she continued attending court sessions as usual. The court noted that there was no evidence of force meant to prevent her from performing her duties.
The court concluded that the actions described, including verbal disputes and attempts to coerce the signing of divorce papers, did not amount to obstruction of public duties, wrongful confinement, assault, cruelty, or criminal intimidation. It also highlighted the absence of any demand for property or valuable security, a key requirement under Section 498A.
The court observed that the FIR was filed almost a month after the incident. Although the wife, a judicial officer, explained the delay by citing the seriousness of the matter and the fact that the incident occurred at her workplace, the court concluded that the delay, along with other factors, indicated that the FIR was a retaliatory action in the ongoing matrimonial dispute.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence provided in the FIR was deemed inadequate to support the charges. Exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the court quashed the FIR.
