A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain observed that the first information report (FIR) seemed to have been lodged only as a counterblast to the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court invalidated a complaint of cruelty lodged by a judicial officer against her husband and his relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, on a division bench, concluded that the filing of the FIR seemed to be driven primarily by retaliatory motives amid the marital strife between the couple.
“This is a perfect case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court to secure the ends of justice,” the Court observed in its February 9 order while quashing the FIR.
The judicial officer domiciled in Maharashtra entered into marriage with her spouse subsequent to their introduction facilitated by a matrimonial platform, culminating in their union in February 2018. Allegations put forth by the wife assert that post the matrimonial bond, her husband abstained from participating in marital relations, leading to several discordant incidents between them. Furthermore, the wife’s grievances recount an event occurring on June 7, 2023, during which her husband, accompanied by his sibling, allegedly encroached upon her judicial chambers, compelling her to affix her signature to a mutual consent divorce petition. This purported act was purportedly replicated by her in-laws later on the same day.
Consequently, the complaint posits that such actions impeded her judicial obligations on that specific day. Subsequently, on July 9, 2023, in response to the events of June 7, the wife formally lodged a complaint with law enforcement authorities against her husband and in-laws, resulting in the registration of an FIR under Sections 186, 353, 498A, and 506 of the IPC. The temporal ambit of the alleged transgressions outlined in the FIR spans from October 1, 2018, to June 7, 2023. Dissatisfied with the FIR, the husband and in-laws petitioned the High Court, seeking its quashing. Upon meticulous examination, the Court discerned no tangible evidence indicating that the husband and in-laws impeded the wife’s judicial obligations, neither during the morning nor afternoon sessions. Moreover, the Court observed that during the afternoon session, the relatives refrained from entering the courtroom, opting instead to await the judicial officer in her chamber, where proceedings were voluntarily adjourned by her.
“There does not appear to be any obstruction to the wife in discharge of her public function but on the contrary, she discharged her official duties on that day and, therefore, the provisions are not attracted. The act of retiring to the chamber is a voluntary act of the informant on being told by her peon,” the Court noted.
The Court also determined that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the husband resorted to coercion or intimidation to hinder the wife’s efficacy as a judicial officer. Additionally, the High Court concluded that the conflicts and disagreements between the complainant and her in-laws, including her husband, did not meet the requisite criteria for establishing an offense under Section 498A of the IPC. In light of these determinations, the Court invalidated the FIR lodged against the husband and his relatives.
