On February 1, 2022, the Bombay High Court nullified a First Information Report (FIR) against a matchmaker and a senior banker, who were charged along with the husband and his family.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan observed,
A match-maker, who praised the groom before the prospective bride’s family, cannot be charged with cheating merely because the man allegedly treated the woman badly and is now accused of domestic violence.
Case:
Shailendra Kumar Dubey is currently serving as the Deputy General Manager at Bank of India in West Bengal. In 2018, he facilitated a marriage as a matchmaker, which has since resulted in a domestic violence complaint filed by the woman against her husband and in-laws. In her statement to the police, the woman also accused Dubey of cheating by manipulating her father’s emotions and praising her husband and in-laws. In 2019, Dubey, among others, was charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, and he has already been granted Anticipatory Bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai in A.B.A. No.1467 of 2020.
Dubey subsequently filed a petition in the High Court seeking to have the FIR against him dismissed.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court considered the petition and made the following observation:
This is nothing but an abuse of process of law by the Investigating Officer which cannot be countenanced.
The allegations made in the FIR and the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., even if, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the applicant.
Furthermore, the division bench composed of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan stated:
This, in our view, cannot be said to be the offences, even remotely, attracting ingredients of Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
As a matter of fact, it appears that the petitioner, in good faith, acted as a mediator for fixing the marriage of the respondent no.1 (wife) with the accused, providing the contact details of both parties to each other. He is in no way related with any of the parties.
Citing the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors, the Bombay High Court followed the established guidelines for quashing an FIR and concluded that this was an appropriate situation for invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.