Girishchandra M. Gupta Vs Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

1.		When this A	pplication was called o	ut on	7th
August	2008,	none	appeared for	th	e	second	Respondent.
Therefore,	the	Advoca	te for	the		Applicant	was
directed	to	serve	an intimation	in	writ	ing t	o the
Advocate	who	has	filed Vakalatn	ama	for	the	second
Respondent.		When	this Applicati	on	was	called	out on
12th	August	2008,	the Advoca	te	for	the	Applicant

¶12

stated that the Advocate for the second Respondent

¶13

has declined to accept the notice.

¶14

By this Application under section 482 of the

¶15

2 -

¶16

Code	of	Criminal	Pro	cedure,	1973,	the Ap	plicant	has
sought	qua	shing	of	the cri	minal	proceedings	on	the
basis	of	the F.	I.R	lodged	by the	second		Respondent
alleging		commission	o	f offen	ces u	nder	sections	498A,
342,	323,	504, 506	(ii)	of the	Indian	Penal	Code.	On
1st	April	1999,	this	Court	issued	rule	and	granted
interim	re	lief in	ter	ms of	prayer	clause	(b)	subject
to	Applica	nt depositi	ng	a sum	of	Rs.3,000/-	in	this

¶17

Court. The Farad Sheet shows that the amount has

¶18

been deposited and the same has been invested.

¶19

3.		The	Petitioner m	arried to	the second
Respondent	on	9th	May	1982.	There were	two	daughters
born	from	the	wed-lock	in	the year 1985	and	1987.
According		to t	he case	of	the Applicant,	between	the
year	1984	and	1989,	t	he second	Respondent	was
residing	at	Ma	ndsaur in	the	State of Ma	dhya	Pradesh
and	used	to	casually	visit	Bhayander which	is	the
place	of	resi	dence of	the	Applicant.	The	allegation
of t	he	Petiti	oner is	that	at Mandsaur,	the	second
Respondent			was m	aintaining	illicit re	lationship	with
her	brother-	in-law.	A	ccording	to the case	of	the
Applicant,		the	second	Re	spondent insisted	on	the
Applicant	ex	ecuting	a	Deed	of Divorce	by	mutual
consent.		He	pointed	out	that the said	Deed	itself

¶20

3 -

¶21

records that the Applicant had given cash amount as well as property worth Rs.10 lacs to the second

¶22

Respondent for her maintenance as well as maintenance

¶23

of his minor daughters.

¶24

4.	According to the case of the Applicant,	in
June	1995, the second Respondent	returned back	to
matrimonial	home at Bhayander.	The Applicant	allowed
her	to stay alongwith the daughters.	The	Applicant
also	secured admission for the	daughter in	local
school.	It is alleged that	while staying	at
Bhayander,	the second Respondent	was ma	intaining
illicit	relationship with one Mr.	Umesh	Jadhav.
When	the Applicant raised an obj	ection to the	said
relationship,	the second Respondent dem	anded a sum	of
Rs.50,000/-	and assured that after	receiving the	sum
of Rs	.50,000/-, she would go back	to Mandsaur	in
Madhya	Pradesh and would not	return back	to
Bhayander.	Accordingly, the Applicant	paid a su	m of
Rs.50,000/-	to the second Respondent	and on	receiving
the	amount, the second Respondent	left Bhayander	for
Mandsaur.	It is stated that the	said Umesh	Jadhav
brought	back the second Respondent	and made	an
attempt	to forcibly enter the matri	monial home.	The
second	Respondent lodged the F.I.R o	n 9th June	1996

¶25

4 -

¶26

with the	Bhaya	nder Police Station. T	he A	pplicant was
arrested	and	was later on enlarged		on bail.
According	to	the case of the Applicant	, on	22nd June
1996,	the sec	ond Respondent left a note	for	him and
left	the	matrimonial home alongwith	her	daughters.
On 28th	June	1996, the Applicant filed	a	Petition for
divorce	in	the Civil Court claiming	divorce	on the
ground	of c	ruelty and adultery.	The	Applicant
impleaded	the	said Umesh Jadhav as	a	co-Respondent
alongwith	the	second Respondent.	The	second
Respondent	did	not contest the said	Pe	tition and
ultimately,	on	29th June 1998, a de	cree o	f divorce
was passed u	nder sectio	n 13(1)(b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act,	1955.

¶27

5.	The contention of the Advocate	for the
Applicant	is that lodging of	F.I.R by the	second
Respondent	is clearly an abuse of	process of law.	He
pointed	out that the second	Respondent has	not
disputed	the deed of divorce dat	ed 22nd December	1989
executed	by and between her	and the Applicant	He
submitted	that apart from le	gality of the	said
document,	the said document shows	that cash as	well
as pro	perty worth Rs. 10 lacs	was given by	the
Applicant	for the maintenance	of the	second

¶28

5 -

¶29

Respondent. The	F.I.R	was lodged by the second
Respondent on	9th	June 1996. In the said F.I.R,
vague allegation	has	been made by the second
Respondent that th	e App	licant demanded a sum of Rs.10
lacs for his	business	and the Applicant was harassing
her for coerc	ing her	to bring the said amount. He
pointed out that	the	F.I.R itself records to the fact
that it was the	said	Umesh Jadhav who had accompanied
the second Res	pondent	from her village. He pointed
out that in	fact	on 9th June 1996, the second
Respondent and	the	said Umesh Jadhav tried to
forcibly ente	r t	he Applicant’s residential premises.
He pointed out	that	the said Umesh Jadhav assaulted
the Applicant.	He	pointed out that the Applicant
suffered injuries	and	though he visited nearest
Police Station,	his	complaint was not accepted.
However, F.I.R	at	the instance of the second
Respondent was	regist	ered. It is stated that the
Applicant filed	a	complaint of mis-behaviour against
the concerned	Police	Officers with the Superintendent
of Police on	14t	h June 1996 and the disciplinary
action has been	take	n against the concerned Officers.
He, therefore,	submit	ted that a clear case is made

¶30

out for exercising power under section 482 of the

¶31

said Code.

¶32

6 -

¶33

I have carefully considered the submissions.

¶34

The second Responden	t h	as not filed	any	reply to	this
Application. This		Application is	pending	in	this
Court from the	year	1999. The	second	Respondent	has
not disputed the	execu	tion of the	purporte	d Deed	of
Divorce which re	cords	that the Ap	plicant	had	handed
over cash and pro	perty	worth Rs.10	lacs	to the	second
Respondent for	main	tenance. As	stated	earlier,	on
1st July 1996,	the	Applicant filed	a	Petition	for
divorce against	the	second Respond	ent to	which	the
said Umesh Jadhav	was	impleaded as	co-Re	spondent.	In
the said Petiti	on,	allegations of	living	in	adultery
were made agains	t th	e second Res	pondent	and the	said
Umesh Jadhav.	Both	the second R	espondent	and	Umesh
Jadhav did not	ap	pear in the sa	id	Petition.	The
allegations made	by	the Applicant	were	accepted	by
the Civil Court	and	a decree of	divorce	was	passed

¶35

under section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶36

7.	Perusal	of F.I.R	filed	by the secon	d
Respondent	shows	that	even	according	to the	case	of
the second	Resp	ondent,		the said	Umesh	Jadhav	had
visited the	seco	nd	Res	pondent’s	village	and	had

¶37

7 -

¶38

brought	the second Respond	ent from the said		village
to	Bhayander. The seco	nd Respondent has	stated	that
the s	aid Umesh Jadhav	accompanied her	and	her
daughters	from her parent	’s place to the	mat	rimonial
home	in April 1996. Her	case is that the	said	umesh
Jadhav	accompanied her at	the instance	of	the
Applicant.	As far as the	demand of Rs.10	lacs	is
concerned,	the allegations	made by the		second
Responden	t are very vague	and devoid	of	any
particulars.	It must be	noted here that a		Petition
for	divorce was filed	by the Applicant	after	the
F.I.R	was lodged by the	second Responden	t.	The
second	Respondent did not	choose to contest	the	said
Petition	though very serious	allegations were	made	by
the	Applicant against the	second Resp	ondent	as

¶39

regards living in adultery with the said Umesh

¶40

Jadhav.

¶41

The Advocate for the Applicant has pointed

¶42

out	that discipl	inary	action	was	taken	against	the
concerned	officers of	the	Bh	yander	Police	Station	who
had	registered the	F.I	.R at	the	instanc	e of	the
second	Respondent.	Relia	nce	has	been	placed	on
letter	14th June	1996	sent	by	the Appli	cant to	the
Superinten	dent of	Poli	ce (	Thane	Rural)	setting	out

¶43

8 -

¶44

the manner in which the complaint sought to be lodged by the Applicant was not registered and the manner in which the F.I.R was registered at the instance of the second Respondent. There are documents placed on record in the form of medical certificate of medical officer of Primary Health Centre to show that on 9th

¶45

June 1996, even an Applicant suffered injuries which

¶46

were mentioned in the said certificate.

¶47

As stated earlier, interim relief of stay of

¶48

the	further p	roceeding	s	of	the	case has	been
operating	from	1st	April	199	9. There	is no	reply
filed	by the s	econd	Re	sponde	nt to	the allegations	and
averments	made	in	the	App	lication.	In view of	the
peculiar	facts and	in	v	iew	of the	unchallenged	decree
of div	orce passed	by	the	Civi	l Court	on the ground	of
adultery,	the	con	tiuati	on	of c	riminal proc	eedings
against	the pe	titioner		on	the basis	of the	F.I.R
lodged	by the	seco	nd	Respo	ndent is	nothing but	an
abuse	of process	of		law.	It will	be unjust	to
continue	the	prosecut	ion	on	the	basis of	the
allegations	made	in t	he	said	F.I.R.	Apart from	the
fact	that the	ac	tion	of	the second	Respondent	of
filing	F.I.R	lacks			bonafides,	continuation	of

¶49

proceedings will cause undue harassment to the

¶50

9 -

¶51

Applicant.

¶52

Considering the peculiar facts of the case,

¶53

the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶54

Procedure, 1973 will have to be invoked.

¶55

11.	A	ccordingly,	rule is made absolut	e in terms
of	prayer	clause	(a). A	sum of	Rs.	3,000/-
deposited	by	the	Applicant	towards	the	interest

¶56

accrued thereon shall be paid to the Applicant on

¶57

expiry of period of four months from today.

¶58

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

Girishchandra M. Gupta v. Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girishchandra M. Gupta v. Sr. Inspector of Police Bhayander Police Stn.

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

Chandrakant B.Garware Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Chandrakant B.Gaware and Anr. Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Chandrakant B.Garware Vs Gill and Co.Ltd. and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T.M.M.Nambiar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.