Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 9th October 2012 passed in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 and FIR No.311 of 2012 registered at Juhu Police Station, Mumbai. The petitioners in the first petition were Mrs. Shalu Agarwal, Vinay Jindal, and Jogesh Jindal, the original accused Nos. 1 to 3. The second respondent, Mrs. Sunita S. Kumar, was the original complainant. The dispute arose from a matrimonial discord between the complainant's son Gautam Kumar and petitioner No.1, who married on 2nd October 2006. It was alleged that after marriage, petitioner No.1 engaged in quarrels, leading to the family separating. Tensions escalated around the time of the marriage of the complainant's daughter in May 2010. Petitioner No.1 left for Ludhiana with her son, and the complainant's family obtained anticipatory bail fearing false implication. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, along with police officials from Punjab, conspired to file a false FIR No.133 of 2010 at Samrala Police Station, Punjab, under Sections 307, 498A, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant and her family. The FIR alleged that on 8th May 2010, the complainant's family demanded money, attempted to strangulate petitioner No.1, and she jumped from a car to escape. The complainant contended that the FIR was fabricated as she and her family were in Mumbai preparing for the marriage and never visited Punjab. She also claimed that the petitioners, using money and influence, colluded with Punjab police, who came to her Mumbai residence on 30th May 2010 and attempted to arrest her and her son despite anticipatory bail. Her son was remanded to judicial custody in Punjab for 36 days before being granted bail. The petitioners, in turn, filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the subsequent order and FIR, arguing that the complaint against them was false and an abuse of process. The court heard arguments on 29th August 2013 and reserved judgment. No final decision is recorded in the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No.311 of 2012 and order dated 9th October 2012 in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 are liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (10) 36
Writ Petition No.196 of 2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari and G.S. Patel, JJ.
Mr. O.P. Pandey i/b. Mr. Madhusudan Pareek for Petitioner in W.P.1495 of 2013; Mr. M.S. Mohite, Amit Jajoo, T.R. Yadav with Mr. Rishabha Agrawal for petitioners in W.P.196 of 2013; None for petitioner in W.P.1209 of 2013; Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for State in all petitions; Mr. S.G. Deshmukh with R.D. Suryawanshi for respondent No.2 in all petitions
WP 196/2013: Mrs. Shalu Agarwal, Vinay Jindal, Jogesh Jindal; WP 1495/2013: Arvind Puri and Ors.; WP 1209/2013: Dr. Harbhajan Singh Naghi @ Dr. Negi
State of Maharashtra (Inspector of Police, Juhu Police Station) and Mrs. Sunita S. Kumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order and FIR
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 9th October 2012 in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 and FIR No.311 of 2012 registered by Juhu Police Station
Filing Reason
Petitioners allege that respondent No.2 (original complainant) filed a false complaint alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery, and fabrication to implicate them in a case, abusing the process of law
Previous Decisions
Complaint filed by respondent No.2 before Metropolitan Magistrate led to order dated 9-10-2012 and registration of FIR No.311/2012; earlier FIR No.133/2010 registered at Samrala Police Station, Punjab
Issues
Whether the FIR No.311 of 2012 and order dated 9th October 2012 in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 are liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
The prayer in the first petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to an order dated 9th October 2012 passed in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 filed by the respondent No.2 and the subsequent F.I.R. No.311 of 2012 registered by the respondent No.1 and thereafter quash and set aside the order and F.I.R. No.311 of 2012.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, resulting in order dated 9th October 2012 and FIR No.311 of 2012. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.196 of 2013 under Article 226 seeking quashing of said order and FIR. Connected petitions (WP No.1495/2013 and WP No.1209/2013) were also filed. The High Court heard the matters on 29th August 2013 and reserved judgment, pronouncing it on 14th October 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 498A, 406, 120-B
- Constitution of India, 1950: 226
