The Aurangabad division of the Bombay High Court, in its ruling issued on January 07, 2023, nullified a charge of cruelty as outlined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a female judicial official who had been brought before the court by her brother’s spouse.
The division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and RM Joshi, in their ruling, characterized the case filed by the complainant as false and noted that the ‘damaged’ reputation of an individual cannot be fully restored even after acquittal through legal means.
Case:
Vrushali Jayesh Kore (the applicant), a judicial officer, was charged under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406, 506 in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in June 2019. The applicant, who is legally wed and residing separately from her spouse at another residence, petitioned the High Court to annul the allegedly ‘fraudulent’ case brought against her by her brother’s wife.
Background:
The union between Respondent No. 2 (the wife) and the brother of the Applicant was formalized on April 19, 2019. Respondent No. 2 departed the marital residence on June 7, 2019 and filed a First Information Report (FIR) on November 12, 2019 against her spouse, her in-laws, and the Applicant (Vrushali Kore) alleging that they had inflicted physical and mental cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegations by Brother’s Wife
- On 18th May, 2019, she ordered Chicken Biryani for her brother but told respondent No. 2 to cook her own food
- When respondent No. 2 had visited the applicant, she was told to get ready in an unused washroom
- The applicant had told respondent No. 2 not to raise her voice against her parents
- The applicant had phoned the brother of respondent No. 2 and told him that they should keep respondent No. 2 at her parental house at Jalgaon and that respondent No. 2 should seek divorce
- The applicant told the brother of respondent No. 2 that the behaviour of respondent No. 2 was not acceptable to them and that she should mend her ways to continue to live in the matrimonial home
- The applicant, who is a Judicial Officer, ought to have intervened the dispute between the respondent No. 2 and her husband impartially rather than being biased, supporting her brother and blaming her
- The applicant posted a comment on her WhatsApp status congratulating her brother for finding a new girl in his life and advising him to forget the past and start a new life
Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Upon examination of the evidence on record, the bench determined that the FIR was a prime illustration of the utilization of Section 498-A to involve family members of the defendant for the resolution of personal vendettas against the defendant. The bench stated,
The unfounded proceedings, qua the applicant, need to be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, to protect the right of the applicant and thus to secure the ends of justice.
The bench expounded on the right to reputation and dignity, stating,
The right to reputation and dignity of an individual is held to be an integrated part of Articles 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution.
Therefore, it is imperative for the Court in fit cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta.
Annulling the aforementioned FIR and subsequent legal proceedings, the bench reached the conclusion,
The First Information Report prima facie reveals that there is rift in marital ties between the respondent No. 2 and her husband, the brother of the applicant herein. The applicant has been dragged into the matrimonial dispute.
VFMI Take:
Without significant repercussions for women who file false cases, which can result in the prolonged involvement of family members for years and decades, there will be no deterrent to prevent such individuals from continuing this behavior.
Merely verbal statements from the court regarding reputation and dignity appear insubstantial, and a mere acquittal in a clearly false case holds no significance for the individual who has been acquitted.
The outcomes from the court exemplify a major concern if a law criminalizing marital rape is enacted; Disgruntled spouses may file false rape charges indiscriminately against their partners, leaving them with the lifelong stigma of being a rapist. Such individuals may also receive alimony as a result of a compromise, following which the rape charges will be dismissed with mutual agreement.