Bombay High Court Quashes Woman’s FIR Against In-Laws, Cites Revenge Motive in Filing

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 filed an FIR against her in-laws under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, without making any allegations against her husband. The in-laws requested the FIR be quashed. The court, with judges A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, noted that the accusations were vague and some incidents were actually against the husband, not the in-laws. The court also observed that there was a history of property disputes between the couple and the in-laws. It concluded that the FIR seemed to be a way for the husband, through his wife, to settle property disputes with his family. The court decided that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive and quashed it.

Background

The petitioners were the in-laws of Respondent 3 (the “Wife”), who accused them of crimes under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Interestingly, she did not make any accusations against her husband. The in-laws wanted the FIR filed against them by the Wife and her husband to be quashed, along with the final report submitted by the police to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 52nd Court at Kurla, Mumbai.

The wife claimed that the petitioners quarreled with her husband over minor issues to force them out of the house and mistreated them over trivial matters. She said they didn’t allow her to use the kitchen, domestic appliances, the terrace, or the garden, practiced black magic on her, made offensive comments about her relatives, and restricted access to domestic help. She also mentioned an incident where she was allegedly beaten by the petitioners. Additionally, 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, as well as 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., 2024, 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., 2023, 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 reviewed the FIR and chargesheet and found the allegations against the petitioners to be vague and general. The wife had listed incidents of cruelty in the FIR, but they didn’t meet the criteria for Section 498-A of the IPC. In fact, some incidents were about the husband, not the wife.

The Court noted that the couple and the petitioners had a history of civil litigation, mostly involving property disputes. It seemed that the FIR was a way for the husband, using his wife, to settle a property dispute with his family. The mention of challenging the Gift Deed from the husband’s father showed the husband’s true intentions. The Court concluded that the FIR was just a tactic used by the husband, through his wife, to pursue his own interests in his father’s property.

The Court also observed that the wife initiated the legal action solely at her husband’s insistence. As a result, the Court concluded that the FIR was filed with the hidden motive of seeking revenge against 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 the initiation 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 found that the FIR was a misuse of the legal system and that the police were being used to pursue the private interests of the wife and her husband. This case showed a serious abuse of Section 498-A of the IPC.

Therefore, the Court canceled both the FIR against the petitioners and the final report given 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