Criminal application to quash an FIR and cognizance in matrimonial dispute alleging Section 498A cruelty. Court found allegations unsubstantial and constituted no offence. Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.
First Information Report Crime No. 355/2020 and RCC No. 66/2021 stood quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
criappln1122.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1122 OF 2021
Smt. Vrushali Jayesh Kore age 40 years, occ. service R/o Queens Garden, General Vidya Road, Tq. & Dist. Pune
Applicant
Versus
Mr. A. R. Devkate, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P. G. Borade, APP for the State. Mr. T. K. Sant, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI & R. M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2023.
JUDGMENT :
criappln1122.21.odt
being RCC No. 66/2021 pending on the fle of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court Cases 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First Information Report. The relevant paragraph reads thus :-
“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
criappln1122.21.odt
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defned and suffciently channelised and infexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the frst information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the frst information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police offcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
criappln1122.21.odt
just conclusion that there is suffcient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specifc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing effcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fde and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
4. In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Md.
Sharaful Haque and others, AIR 2005 SCC 9 , the Apex Court has reiterated thus :-
“8. … It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justifed to quash any proceeding if it fnds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant
criappln1122.21.odt
has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.”
“17. … this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A I.P.C. and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
criappln1122.21.odt
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”
criappln1122.21.odt
i) On 18th May, 2019, she ordered Chicken Biryani for her brother but told respondent No. 2 to cook her own food.
ii) When respondent No. 2 had visited the applicant, she was told to get ready in an unused washroom.
iii) The applicant had told respondent No. 2 not to raise her voice against her parents.
iv) The applicant had phoned the brother of respondent No. 2 and told him that they should keep respondent No. 2 at her parental house at Jalgaon and that respondent No. 2 should seek divorce.
v) The applicant told the brother of respondent No. 2 that the behaviour of respondent No. 2 was not acceptable to them and that she should mend her ways to continue to live in the matrimonial home.
vi) The applicant, who is a Judicial Offcer, ought to have intervened the dispute between the respondent No. 2 and her
criappln1122.21.odt
husband impartially rather than being biased, supporting her brother and blaming her.
vii) The applicant posted a comment on her WhatsApp status congratulating her brother for fnding a new girl in his life and advising him to forget the past and start a new life.
criappln1122.21.odt
mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that flches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.” In legal parlance, right to reputation and dignity of an individual is held to be an integrated part of Articles 21 and 19(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in ft cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta.
criappln1122.21.odt
bearing Crime No. 355/2020 dated 12th November, 2019 registered with Ramanand Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and RCC No. 66/2021 pending on the fle of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, stand quashed and set aside, qua the applicant.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI) Judge Judge
dyb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether allegations in a matrimonial FIR amount to abuse of process of court warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether unfounded criminal charges against family members in a Section 498A case justify quashing to secure ends of justice.
Whether the FIR against the applicant constitutes a cognizable offence justifying police investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersRelied on¶19
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court Cases 335 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and othersRelied on¶34
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and others, AIR 2005 SCC 9 · Who else cites this
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and othersRelied on¶40
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Vrushali Jayesh Kore
State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department
Sow. Deepali Bhushan More
Anuja Prabhu
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
