Recently, the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., held that the application to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings was not maintainable. The matter involved allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Court observed that the conduct of the applicants in withholding custody of the minor child born to the informant and her husband and defying judicial orders impacted the maintainability of the application.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the applicants, who are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law of the informant, challenged the FIR registered against them in 2022 for offences related to dowry harassment and cruelty. The informant’s marriage with Ravi Waghmare, their son and brother, was solemnised in 2019. The informant alleged that her husband demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for a car, and when she could not fulfil this demand, she was subjected to physical abuse and cruelty by both her husband and his family members. The informant's supplementary statement further accused the applicants of expelling her from the marital home and retaining custody of their child.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that the allegations in the FIR were vague and lacked material specifics to suggest their involvement in the offence. They argued that no material evidence had been found during the investigation and, therefore, the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings should be quashed. Additionally, they claimed that the informant had falsely implicated them.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Counsel appearing on behalf of the information argued that the allegations were clear and substantiated by the statements of witnesses, including Kuldeep Jadhav, a relative of the applicant who confirmed the harassment and demand for dowry. Further, emphasised that the allegations should be taken at face value for the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that the applicants were not entitled to seek the quashing of the proceedings due to their misconduct, particularly in defying a Court order regarding child custody.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that it could not exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. solely based on the arguments of the petitioner. It emphasised that allegations in the FIR, as well as statements of the witnesses, were to be taken at face value at this stage. The Court observed, “It is hard to believe that the applicants are not aware of the whereabouts of their son and have still not taken any steps to find him. It appears that as a matter of strategy, husband-Ravi is not coming before the Court to keep custody of his daughter Abha in defiance of the order of custody passed by the Competent Court”. The Court further noted the defiance of judicial orders in the matter of custody, stating, “Respondent No.2 has narrated that her husband – Ravi and applicants, who are her parents-in-law and sister-in-law used to constantly harass her on account of her failure to collect money from her parents as demanded by them. There is a specific allegation that they used to demand a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from her for purchasing a car”.
Further, the Court found the testimonies of the informant’s family, along with the statements of a relative, Kuldeep Jadhav, corroborative. The Court emphasised the continuing nature of the harassment, including the refusal to comply with custody orders, which amounted to mental cruelty, stating, “Such act of the in-laws amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of IPC. We further record that the said mental harassment is continuing from day to day till date. It is a continuing wrong”.
The decision of the Court:
The Court observed that the applicant’s actions were not in line with legal conduct. Given the non-compliance with the court's custody order, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The application was, therefore, dismissed, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.
Case Title: XXX v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Application No. 2376 of 2023
Coram: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, Justice Rohit W. Joshi
Advocate for Applicant: Adv. Milind K. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A. Kulkarni, Hrishikesh V. Tunkar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
