Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including the husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and his wife, sought quashing of FIR No.132/2013 registered at Vita Police Station for offences under Sections 498-A, 313, 494, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and the subsequent charge sheet. The complainant, wife of petitioner No.1, alleged that after marriage in 2002 and birth of a son in 2004, she was subjected to cruelty including demands for Rs.25 lakhs, beatings, starvation, forced abortions, burns with a hot iron rod by the mother-in-law, and that the husband married another woman without divorce. The petitioners argued that the FIR was filed after a delay of three years from the last incident in 2009, was a counterblast to the husband's divorce petition, and that no cognizable offence was made out. The respondent-wife relied on orders under the Domestic Violence Act and restitution of conjugal rights in her favour. The court held that allegations against petitioners No.1 (husband) and No.2 (mother-in-law) were specific and prima facie disclosed offences, including bigamy, and thus the FIR against them could not be quashed. However, allegations against petitioners No.3 (brother-in-law) and No.4 (his wife) were general and vague, and continuing prosecution against them would be an abuse of process. The court partially allowed the petition, quashing proceedings against petitioners No.3 and 4 only.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Specific Allegations - Where allegations against petitioners No.3 and 4 (brother-in-law and his wife) are general and vague, prosecution against them would be abuse of process of law - Held that general and omnibus allegations cannot force relatives to undergo trial (Paras 13-14).
B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 494 - Cruelty and Bigamy - Prima Facie Case - Specific allegations of physical and mental cruelty, forced abortions, and bigamy against husband and mother-in-law disclose cognizable offences - Held that FIR cannot be quashed against them (Paras 9-12).
C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 494 - Bigamy - Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage - Petitioner No.1 married another woman without divorce - Held that this constitutes cruelty and separate offence (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and charge sheet against all petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of specific allegations and limitation
Final Decision
Petition partly allowed. Proceedings against petitioners No.3 (Vinayak Ananda Vibhute) and No.4 (Rameshwari Vinayak Vibhute) quashed. FIR and charge sheet against petitioners No.1 (Sanjay Ananda Vibhute) and No.2 (Mangal Ananda Vibhute) to continue.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- Specific allegations required for prosecution of relatives
- Offence of bigamy as cruelty
- Limitation in matrimonial offences
- Prima facie case test
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 314
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2832 of 2014
A. S. Gadkari, Dr. Neela Gokhale
Ms. Bhavika Shinde i/b Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Petitioners, Smt. Anamika Malhotra Addl.PP for Respondent No.1-State, Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud for Respondent No.2
Sanjay Ananda Vibhute, Mangal Ananda Vibhute, Vinayak Ananda Vibhute, Rameshwari Vinayak Vibhute
State of Maharashtra, Ashwini Sanjay Vibhute
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet for matrimonial offences
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of C.R.No.132/2013 and the final report under Section 482 CrPC
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the FIR was filed after delay, as a counterblast to divorce petition, and no cognizable offence was made out
Previous Decisions
Domestic Violence Petition decreed in favour of complainant on 5th January 2012; Petition for restitution of conjugal rights decreed; Divorce Petition filed by petitioner No.1 pending
Issues
Whether the FIR and charge sheet disclose prima facie offences against all petitioners
Whether the FIR is barred by limitation
Whether general and vague allegations against petitioners No.3 and 4 warrant quashing
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that FIR was filed after three years from last incident, is time-barred, and is a counterblast to divorce petition
Petitioners contended that abortion was due to medical reasons as per radiologist report
Respondent-wife argued that specific instances of cruelty and violence are detailed in FIR and supported by orders under DV Act and restitution of conjugal rights
State opposed the petition and supported complainant's case
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 482 CrPC, FIR can be quashed if allegations are general and vague, but specific and believable allegations disclosing cognizable offences must proceed to trial. General and omnibus allegations against relatives of husband cannot force them to undergo trial.
Judgment Excerpts
We find that, the allegations against the Petitioners No. 3 and 4 are quite general and vague. Allowing prosecution against the Petitioners No. 3 and 4 in the absence of clear allegations against them would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
At the same time, allegations against the husband and mother-in-law are specific and believable. The contents of the FIR prima facie disclose commission of the offences as alleged against the Petitioners No.1 and 2 but not against Petitioners No. 3 and 4.
Procedural History
FIR registered on 8th August 2013 at Vita Police Station. Final report filed on 11th November 2014. Rule issued and proceedings stayed on 22nd February 2023. Petition heard and reserved on 25th July 2024, judgment pronounced on 31st July 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498-A, 313, 494, 323, 504, 506, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
