Quashed

Lalji Devraj Shah and Anr. v. Kavita Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Sept 2009WP/724/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side, in a criminal writ petition, accepted counsel's submission that the FIR under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners was filed mala fide without dowry demand allegations. Applying Ch. Bhajan Lal, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioners, including an employee not a relative.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.243 of 2008 against the petitioners in both criminal writ petitions is quashed.

Lalji Devraj Shah and Anr. Vs Kavita Shah and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2009

¶4

Mr. Lalji Devraj Shah
& Anr..... Petitioners
Vs.
Mrs. Kavita Shah & Ors..... Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2009

¶7

Dimple Anthony Carvalho.... Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs. Kavita Shah & Ors..... Respondents

¶8

Shri H.H. Ponda with Ms Trupti Kapadia
i/b M/s. Joy Legal Consultants for
the Petitioners in both petitions.

¶9

Shri Anand Grover i/b Shri Vijay
Hiramath & Shri Prakash Mahadik for
Respondent No.1 in both petitions.

¶10

Ms U.V. Kejariwal, APP, for the State
in both Petitions.

¶11

Ms P.H. Kantharia & Ms Heena Shah for
the Union of India.

¶12

¶13

CORAM: BILAL NAZKI &
A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶14

RESERVED ON : JULY 22, 2009

¶15

PRONOUNCED ON: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

¶16

ORDER (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):

¶17

1.These two petitions have been filed by
three persons who are arrayed as accused in FIR
No.243 of 2008, registered with the Cuffe
Parade Police Station, Mumbai. While Criminal
Writ Petition No.724 of 2009 is filed by one
Lalji Devraj Shah and his wife, Criminal Writ
Petition No.1017 of 2009 is filed by one Dimple
Anthony Carvalho. The petitioners contend that
the complaint has been filed by respondent No.1
with mala fide motive of roping in all the
family members irrespective of the fact whether
they have committed any offence or not.

¶18

2.We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
has submitted that from bare perusal of the
complaint it will be crystal clear that there
is not even an allegation against the present
petitioners which would constitute an offence,

¶19

¶20

much less a cognizable offence. We have gone
through the complaint. It appears that there
are disputes between respondent No.1 and her
husband. The petitioners in Criminal Writ
Petition No.724 of 2009 are the in-laws of
respondent No.1. The complaint states that
while the complainant was working as a
Housekeeping Manager at Dubai Marine Hotel, she
got acquainted with Shri Paresh Lal Shah. This
acquaintance turned into love and subsequently
resulted in marriage, with the consent of the
families of both. The marriage took place in
Bangalore and one month thereafter, the
complainant and her husband went to Dubai. She
resumed her job at Dubai Marine Hotel and her
husband was doing his business at Bharaja
Trading at Dubai.

¶21

In 2000, her husband appointed a lady
named Ms Dimple Anthony Carvalho, who is the
petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.1017 of
2009, in his office. In April, 2001 she came
to stay with them. At that time the

¶22

complainant told her husband not to allow
Dimple to stay with them but he did not agree.
At that time there was no illicit relationship
between them but her husband did all things
according to the advise of Dimple. All the

¶23

¶24

allegations in this connection are against the
husband. The allegations against the mother-
in-law and the father-in-law in the complaint
read thus:

¶25

"After such conversations on the
phone, on returning he used to
severely beat me in front of my son,
my mother-in-law Mrs. Dhanvantlal
Shah, aged 70 years, father-in-law -
Mr. Lal Shah aged - 87 years,
residing at the above mentioned
address. In spite of this my
mother-in-law and father-in-law did
not stop him and make him
understand. As a result he used to
physically abuse and beat me and
would have intercourse with me like
a wild man and I was helpless before
him as I had no one to help abroad."

¶26

The further allegations against the in-laws
read thus:

¶27

"On 16th April, 2007, when I asked
my husband for my and my sons'
passport, he punched me on my nose,
and my nose started bleeding. At
that time his mother and father were
also present. As I was going to a
Doctor for treatment, my husband
threatened me that "I will cancel
you Visa if you inform the police or
the doctor. When I returned after
visiting the doctor, I found that
the blood on the floor had been
wiped off and my clothes had been

¶28

¶29

thrown out of the house. So, I
picked up my clothes and kept them
inside the house again."

¶30

The further allegations against the in-laws
are thus:

¶31

"On 23rd November, 2007 while I was
sleeping at around 3 a.m. my husband
suddenly started biting me, because
of which I woke up and started
resisting him. But still he
continued biting me all over my
body. At that time, I started
shouting for my mother-in-law Mrs.
Dhanvanti Lal Shah and father-in-law
Lal Shah and my son Master Karan to
call the police, but I didn't
receive any help."

¶32

3.As regards allegations in the
complaint against the petitioner in Criminal
Writ Petition No.1017 of 2009 are concerned,
the same read thus:

¶33

"Thereafter, in March , 2006 I was
harassed by sending dirty SMS's on
my mobile. So I asked my husband
Mr. Paresh Shah and his secretary
Mrs. Dimple about the dirty sms's
who laughed at me and termed me as
mad and as a result I kept quiet."

¶34

The further allegations in the complaint
against the said Dimple Carvalho read thus:

¶35

¶36

"On 29.9.2006, while we were in
Dubai as my husband did not return
home, even after 3 a.m. I started
searching for him. I saw my
husband's car standing outside our
old home, so I rang the door bell,
after which, Secretary Mrs. Dimple's
sister opened the door. At that
time she said that my husband was
not there. I replied that as my
husband's car was parked outside, it
meant that he was inside. So, I
entered the house and rang the
doorbell of Dimple's bedroom. As
the door was not opened, I called my
husband's sponsor Mr. Mansoor, who
told me to wait there as he was
arriving there. As I was waiting
there, Dimple came out of her
bedroom and started using bad words
against me and said that my husband
was not in her house. On searching,
I found my husband hiding inside a
cupboard."

¶37

The further allegation wherein a reference is
made to the said Dimple reads thus:

¶38

"My husband Mr. Paresh Lal Shah,
after one year of marriage i.e. from
1997 to 24th July, 2008 had been
physically and mentally harassing me
and also beating me and also
harassing me with the help of his
girlfriend Mrs. Dimple Carvalho."

¶39

There are no other allegations against any of

¶40

¶41

the petitioners in the complaint.

¶42

4.A statement in the second last para of
the complaint and which is also very relevant
for deciding the petitions, reads thus:

¶43

"This Complaint is for taking legal
action against my husband for the
above said reasons."

¶44

5.For accusing husband or relatives of
husband of having committed an offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC, there should be
cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the
husband of a woman and there should be an
element of demand of property or valuable
security on account of dowry. The petitioner
in Criminal Writ Petition No.1017 of 2009 is
not even a relative of the husband of the
complainant. Besides, only making allegations
of the above nature, the complaint does not
even disclose that the complainant was treated
with cruelty on account of demand of dowry.
Therefore, applying the principle laid down in

¶45

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and others,reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, we
feel that continuation of investigation in FIR
No.243 of 2008, registered with the Cuffe
Parade Police Station, Mumbai would be an

¶46

¶47

abuse of process of law and, therefore, the
FIR as against the petitioners in both the
petitions deserves to be quashed and is
accordinglyquashed.Thepetitions

¶48

accordingly stand disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

 BILAL NAZKI, J.

¶51

Sd/-

Lalji Devraj Shah and Anr. v. Kavita Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalji Devraj Shah and Anr. v. Kavita Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakant Sampat Randive Vs Ritesh Tukaram Bhandare and Ors.

Priyanaka Rajkumar Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajndra Venkatdas Pai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Shankar Landage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayed Umar Sayed Abbas and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohamed Sabir Mirza Kasam Vs the State of Maharashtra