Bombay High Court Partly Allows Quashing of FIR Against In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case. General and Omnibus Allegations Against Family Members Do Not Attract Section 498-A IPC; FIR Quashed Against Applicant Nos.2 to 6 but Maintained Against Husband.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, including the husband and his relatives, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.648/2017 registered at Police Station Frezarpura, Amravati for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, respondent no.2, married applicant no.1 on 23.04.2016. After a few days of marriage, applicant no.1 allegedly started ill-treating her, demanding money, and threatening to set her on fire. The complainant also alleged that applicant nos.2 to 6 (mother-in-law, father-in-law, uncle-in-law, brother-in-law, and his wife) physically and mentally tortured her and demanded money. The FIR was lodged on 15.07.2017 and registered on 20.07.2017. The applicants argued that even if the allegations are accepted at face value, no offence is made out, especially against applicant nos.2 to 6, as the allegations are general and omnibus. The court examined the FIR and found that the allegations against applicant nos.2 to 6 were vague and lacked specific overt acts. The court noted that the complainant is a qualified lady working at Amravati University and that the dispute appeared to be a matrimonial discord. Relying on the principle that continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of law, the court quashed the FIR against applicant nos.2 to 6. However, the court held that the allegations against applicant no.1 (husband) disclose a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC, and therefore the FIR against him was not quashed. The court also found that the offence under Section 506 IPC was not made out against any of the applicants as there was no specific threat. The application was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash an FIR if the allegations do not disclose any offence or are an abuse of process of law. (Para 7)

B) Indian Penal Code - Dowry Harassment - Section 498-A IPC - General Allegations - Mere omnibus allegations against all family members without specific overt acts do not attract Section 498-A IPC. (Para 7)

C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Absence of Threat - Where there is no specific threat to cause death or grievous hurt, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not made out. (Para 7)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR against the applicants, particularly applicant nos.2 to 6 (in-laws), can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of specific allegations constituting offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is partly allowed. FIR No.648/2017 is quashed against applicant nos.2 to 6. The FIR against applicant no.1 is not quashed and shall be investigated further.

Law Points

  • Quashing of FIR
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • Section 498-A IPC
  • Section 506 IPC
  • General allegations against relatives
  • Abuse of process of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 184

Criminal Application (APL) No.855 of 2017

2018-10-05

P.N. Deshmukh, Mrs. Swapna Joshi

Shri A.M. Jaltare for Applicants, Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar for Respondent No.1-State, Shri P.R. Agrawal for Respondent No.2

Kazi Tahmid Tab and others

State of Maharashtra and Yasmeen Nigar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR No.648/2017 registered at Police Station Frezarpura, Amravati for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Filing Reason

Allegations of dowry harassment and criminal intimidation by husband and in-laws

Issues

Whether the FIR against applicant nos.2 to 6 (in-laws) can be quashed for lack of specific allegations? Whether the offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against any of the applicants?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants argued that even if allegations are accepted, no offence under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC is made out, especially against applicant nos.2 to 6, as allegations are general and omnibus. Respondent-State supported the FIR and opposed quashing.

Ratio Decidendi

General and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband without specific overt acts do not constitute offences under Section 498-A IPC. Continuation of proceedings against such relatives would be an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The allegations against applicant nos.2 to 6 are general and omnibus in nature and do not disclose any specific overt act on their part. The continuation of the proceedings against applicant nos.2 to 6 would be an abuse of process of law.

Procedural History

The applicants filed Criminal Application (APL) No.855 of 2017 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.648/2017. The application was admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission. The court delivered oral judgment on 05.10.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498-A, 506, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partly Allows Quashing of FIR Against In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case. General and Omnibus Allegations Against Family Members Do Not Attract Section 498-A IPC; FIR Quashed Against Applicant Nos.2 to 6 but Maintained Against Husband...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Unlawful Assembly and Unidentified Assailants — Conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC Set Aside for Lack of Individual Liability. The court held that mere presence in a group does not attr...