Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Lilaram Rohira, and respondent no. 2, Priyanka Rakesh Rohira, were married on 14 July 2006. After about a year of cohabitation, they filed a divorce petition by mutual consent in August 2007, but the wife later alleged duress. In February 2008, the husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court. On 26 March 2008, the husband lodged an FIR (C.R. No. 197 of 2008) against the wife for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The wife retaliated by filing an FIR (C.R. No. 215 of 2008) against the husband under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Both parties sought anticipatory bail before the High Court. By a common order dated 12 August 2008, the High Court quashed both FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on consent terms, wherein the husband agreed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- with the Registrar. The order stipulated that if the husband failed to deposit the amount within four weeks, the order would stand cancelled and the FIRs would revive. The husband deposited the amount within time, but the wife refused to accept it. Subsequently, the wife filed a fresh FIR (C.R. No. 392 of 2008) against the husband under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506, and 34 IPC. The husband then filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the fresh FIR and anticipatory bail. The High Court held that the wife's conduct in refusing to accept the deposited amount and filing a fresh FIR was an abuse of process. The court quashed the fresh FIR and granted anticipatory bail to the husband, observing that the consent terms were binding and the wife could not approbate and reprobate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Consent Terms - The husband and wife had entered into consent terms before the High Court for quashing of cross FIRs, with the husband agreeing to deposit Rs.5,00,000/-. The wife later refused to accept the amount and filed a fresh FIR. The Court held that the wife cannot approbate and reprobate; the consent terms were binding and the fresh FIR was an abuse of process. (Paras 1-8) B) Matrimonial Law - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process - The husband sought anticipatory bail after a fresh FIR was registered by the wife. The Court, considering the earlier consent terms and the wife's refusal to accept the deposited amount, quashed the FIR and granted anticipatory bail, holding that the wife's conduct amounted to harassment. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered against the husband (C.R. No. 392 of 2008) should be quashed in light of the earlier consent terms and the subsequent conduct of the parties.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed FIR No. 392 of 2008 registered at Powai Police Station and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that the wife's conduct was an abuse of process and the consent terms were binding.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Consent terms for quashing
- Revival of FIR on non-compliance
- Matrimonial disputes
- Anticipatory bail
