The Bombay High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case involving Sanjay Ananda Vibhute and others, who sought quashing of charges related to domestic violence, cruelty, bigamy, and forced abortion under the Indian Penal Code. The court partially allowed the petition, quashing proceedings against the brother and sister-in-law due to lack of specific allegations. However, it upheld the charges against the husband and mother-in-law, considering the clear and credible claims of cruelty and bigamy.

1. Introduction:

The case revolves around the allegations made by Mrs. Ashwini Sanjay Vibhute against her husband, Sanjay Ananda Vibhute, and his family members for offenses including domestic violence, bigamy, and forced abortions.

2. Background:

The FIR was registered in 2013 at Vita Police Station, Sangli, where Mrs. Ashwini detailed numerous instances of mental and physical abuse by her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and his wife. Specific incidents involved financial extortion, denial of medical care, forced abortions, and physical harm.

3. Legal Arguments:

• Petitioners' Argument: The petitioners argued that the FIR was motivated by malice, filed years after the incidents, and was merely a reaction to ongoing divorce proceedings. They also claimed the abortion was medically advised due to the absence of fetal movement.
• Respondent's Stand: The respondent, Mrs. Ashwini, supported her allegations with evidence and past rulings in her favor, including a domestic violence petition and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

4. Court's Observations:

The court acknowledged the serious and credible nature of the allegations against the husband and mother-in-law. It noted that the evidence, including medical reports, supported claims of cruelty and that the husband’s second marriage without a divorce constituted bigamy.

5. Judgment:

The court quashed the proceedings against the brother-in-law and his wife due to lack of specific involvement but allowed the case to continue against the husband and mother-in-law, deeming the allegations sufficient to warrant a trial.

6. Legal Precedents Cited:

The court referred to the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case, emphasizing that FIRs should be quashed sparingly and only in clear-cut cases of misuse of the law.

7. Conclusion:

The petition was partly allowed, providing relief to some family members while reinforcing the charges against the primary accused, highlighting the court’s balanced approach to such sensitive cases.