The instant FIR was nothing, but a shot fired by the husband from his wife’s shoulders to espouse his own interest in the father’s property.
In a case before the Bombay High Court, a woman lodged an FIR against her in-laws under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, but did not accuse her husband of any wrongdoing. The in-laws sought to have the FIR dismissed. Judges A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale noted that the allegations were unclear and that some incidents actually involved the husband rather than the in-laws. The court also took into account a history of property disputes between the couple and the in-laws. It concluded that the FIR appeared to be a tactic for the husband, via his wife, to address property disputes with his family. The court determined that the FIR was filed with a hidden agenda and subsequently quashed it.
Background
The petitioners, who are the in-laws of Respondent 3 (the “Wife”), faced allegations under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC from the Wife. Notably, she did not accuse her husband of any wrongdoing. The in-laws sought to have the FIR lodged against them by the Wife and her husband, as well as the final report submitted by the police to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court at Kurla, Mumbai, quashed.
The wife alleged that the petitioners had frequent arguments with her husband over minor issues to drive them out of the house and mistreated them over trivial matters. She claimed they prevented her from using the kitchen, domestic appliances, the terrace, and the garden, practiced black magic on her, made derogatory remarks about her relatives, and restricted access to domestic help. She also described an incident in which she was allegedly assaulted by the petitioners. Furthermore, she noted that she and her husband had filed twelve other cases against the petitioners at the RCF Police Station under Sections 504, 506, and 323 of the IPC, in addition to two more cases at the Worli Police Station. In 2013, her deceased father-in-law (petitioner 1) had transferred most of his assets to the other petitioners through a Gift Deed.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court referred to the view adopted by the Supreme Court while dealing with nature of cases similar to the instant case, and referred to Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P., wherein it was held, “the phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the allegations made by the complainant wife against her in-laws, under Section 498-A and others, were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The Court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused in-laws and noted that such a situation left unchecked would result in the abuse of process of law.”
The Court further referred to Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court observed, “whenever an accused comes before the Court to get the FIR or criminal proceedings quashed on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for weaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.”
The Court examined the FIR and chargesheet and found the allegations against the petitioners to be vague and generalized. Although the wife detailed instances of cruelty in the FIR, they did not satisfy the criteria for Section 498-A of the IPC. Some of the incidents described were actually related to the husband rather than the wife.
The Court observed that the couple and the petitioners had a history of civil litigation, primarily concerning property disputes. It appeared that the FIR was a means for the husband, through his wife, to resolve a property conflict with his family. The challenge to the Gift Deed from the husband’s father indicated the husband’s underlying motives. The Court concluded that the FIR was merely a strategy employed by the husband, via his wife, to advance his own interests regarding his father’s property.
The Court further noted that the wife had initiated the legal action solely at her husband’s insistence. Consequently, the Court determined that the FIR was filed with the covert intention of exacting revenge on the petitioners.
The Court referred to Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, wherein the Supreme Court had stated, “the authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice…It would be an abuse of process of the court of any action resulting in injustice and preventing promotion of justice was allowed…The court is justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that theinitiation or continuation of it amounts to abuse of process of court, or the quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.”
The Court determined that the FIR constituted an abuse of the legal system and that the police were being exploited to further the private interests of the wife and her husband. The case demonstrated a significant misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC. As a result, the Court annulled both the FIR against the petitioners and the final report submitted to the Magistrate.
[Darrshan Kumar Vilayatiram Khanna v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 2982 of 2015, decided on 18-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale
