Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR in matrimonial discord citing serious allegations

The Bombay high court (HC), while rejecting a petition seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) filed by a woman against her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law, has held that when serious allegations are levelled against the accused in a matrimonial dispute, the court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Bombay high court (HC), while rejecting a petition seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) filed by a woman against her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law, has held that when serious allegations are levelled against the accused in a matrimonial dispute, the court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The woman had complained the three after they ill-treated her as she failed to comply with their demand for dowry.

HT Image

The complaint states that the husband indulged in forced unnatural sex with her and she was told that her husband’s behaviour would change for the better only if she complied with their dowry demand.

A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the petition of the 33-year-old husband, his 29-year-old brother and 60-year-old mother was informed that they sought quashing of the FIR filed against them at the Vile Parle police station on November 29, 2019. The three had been booked for offences punishable under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the complaint lodged by the woman, she had met her husband through a matrimonial website in 2016. Both the families agreed and the two were engaged. The man established forcible physical relations with the woman and then left for his service on a cruise. After returning, the two were married in April 2017. The complaint states that after marriage the three accused started ill-treating her and demanded that she arrange for dowry from her parents. The husband forcibly indulged in unnatural sex to force her to comply with their demand for dowry. The woman also made some other serious allegations against the husband.

Advocate Aniket Vagal for the petitioners submitted that it was a fit case for the court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR.

However, advocate Jayshree Tripathi for the woman drew the attention of the court to the seriousness of the allegations made by the woman against the three more-so the husband and suggested that the court should not quash the FIR.

After hearing the submissions the court observed, “Having perused the material on record, considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the fact that prima facie the ingredients of the said offences can be found in the said complaint lodged by respondent no.2 (woman), we are of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Thus, the court dismissed the petition.