Allowed

Sangeeta Amit Mallik and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Sept 2007WP/1504/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reduction in cognizable offence in matrimonial disputes involving financial allegations. This judgment quashed the F.I.R. against the petitioners as the complaint failed to disclose any cognizable offence. The court held that mere allegations of borrowing money or verbal harassment without specific criminal acts do not justify police registration of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The F.I.R. No.199 of 2007 is quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioners.

Sangeeta Amit Mallik and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1504 OF 2007

¶4

1. Sangeeta Amit Mallik)
Aged about 29 yrs., Occ: Housewife, )
Residing at 640, Sheetal Nagar No.1,)
Gulmohar Society, Dehu Road, Pune )
)
2. Geeta Satbir Pilania)
Aged about 32 yrs.)
Residing at Flat No.205,)
Swaran Jayanti Society,)
Plot No.97, Sector 54,)
Gurgaon, Haryana ) ...Petitioners
V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra)
The Officer-in-Charge,)
Mahatma Phule Police Station,)
Kalyan, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra) ...Respondent

¶6

Shri E.A. Sai, Advocate, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Shri A.S. Gadkari, APP, for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR &

¶9

SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.] :

¶12

1.Heard. Rule.

¶13

2. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

3.The Petitioners impugn the F.I.R. No.199 of
2007 dated 1-5-2007 registered at Mahatma Phule Chowk
Police Station, Thane so far as it relates to the
Petitioners.

¶16

4.It is the case of the Petitioners that the
complaint dated 1-5-2007, on the basis of which the
said impugned F.I.R. has been registered, nowhere
discloses any cognizable offence to have been committed
either by the petitioners themselves or in collusion
with other persons and, therefore, the police
authorities could not have registered the F.I.R.
against the Petitioners on the basis of the said
complaint.

¶17

5.Upon hearing the learned Advocates and the
parties and on perusal of the record and, more
particularly, the complaint dated 1-5-2007, apparently
discloses that only allegation which has been made
against the Petitioners herein is to the effect that
they had taken some money from the complainant’s
parents and that they were instigating the
complainant’s husband by exaggerating certain things to
harass the complainant to compel her to leave the
matrimonial house. The complainant nowhere discloses

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

any act on the part of the petitioners which can
constitute a cognizable offence so as to enable the
police authorities to register the F.I.R. against the
Petitioners. Merely because the complainant alleges of
borrowing certain money either from the complainant or
from any of her family members, that itself cannot
constitute cognizable offence so as to enable the
police authorities to register the F.I.R. against the
petitioners.

¶20

6.Since the complaint nowhere discloses any
cognizable offence against the Petitioners, the
Petitioners are justified in seeking the order for
quashing the F.I.R. as far as it relates to the
petitioners.

¶21

7.The Petition accordingly succeeds on the above
limited ground. The impugned F.I.R. to the extent it
relates to the Petitioners herein is hereby quashed.
It is made clear that the quashing of the F.I.R. will
not preclude the police authorities from continuing
with the investigation in relation to other persons
named as accused in the said F.I.R. With these
clarifications, the Rule is made absolute in the above
terms with no order as to costs.

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

[Smt.V.K. Tahilramani, J.] [R.M.S. Khandeparkar,J.]

Sangeeta Amit Mallik and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Amit Mallik and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Dukhiram Jana Vs the State of Maharashtra

Siraj Miya Mustafa Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjeevkumar Mahendra Prasad Roy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Javed Sikandar Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sikandar Rasul Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratap Mathuradas Kakkad Vs Additional Commissioner of Police Crime Branch