Omnibus & Stereo-Type Statements About Ill-Treatment: Bombay HC Quashes FIR U/s. 498A IPC Against In-Laws & Husband
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR filed by a wife under Section 498A of the IPC against her husband and in-laws, observing that the allegations of ill-treatment for money were omnibus and stereotypical.
The Court exercised its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of law and set aside the charge sheet against the husband and the in-laws (applicants) arising out of an FIR filed by a wife under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC alleging ill-treatment for the demand of dowry. “Possibility of their false implication based on such omnibus allegations is discernible from the record,” the Bench remarked.
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar found, “Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations and the contents of the FIR and charge sheet in the present case, it can be observed that no case can be made out against the applicants for charged offences on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. If we consider the guidelines espoused by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters, there is reason to believe that present FIR and criminal proceeding is an abuse of process of law. We are, therefore, inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”
Advocate S.R. Andhale appeared for the applicants, while APP V.K. Kotecha represented the respondents.
The applicants submitted that they were falsely implicated in the crime arguing that the wife alleged ill-treatment after a lapse of 8 years from the date of marriage.
It was further pointed out by the applicants that the wife, earlier in 2019, had filed a complaint with similar allegations against them. However, she withdrew the same in 2020.
The High Court noted that the present FIR was filed within five months from the date of withdrawal of the earlier complaint. “The careful scrutiny of FIR depicts that vague, general and omnibus allegations are made against accused persons regarding ill-treatment for trifle reasons,” it remarked.
“Although, the stipulation regarding demand of Rs. 2 Lakh has been employed, no particulars of such demand have been given. It is not clarified as to when such demand was raised It is not the case that the demand was in the form of dowry. The omnibus statement is made that all the in-laws were ill-treating the respondent No.2 in pursuance of the demand of Rs. 2 Lakh,” the Bench stated.
The Aurangabad Bench further noted that these allegations were withdrawn by the wife in separate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “However, selfsame allegations are again raised in the present complaint,” it stated.
The decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) was referred to, where the Apex Court pointed out, “It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.”
Consequently, the Court held that “this is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC. And quash and set aside the proceeding as against applicant Nos. 4 to 7, since the contents of FIR and charge sheet appear to be bereft to make out any offence against them.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal application.
Cause Title: P & Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocates S.R. Andhale and A.G. Ambetkar
Respondents: APP V.K. Kotecha; Advocate P.A. Bharat
