Bombay High Court Quashes Judicial Officer's Cruelty FIR Against Husband And Relatives, Says It Is A Counterblast To Matrimonial Dispute
The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed an FIR filed by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws alleging cruelty and other offences observing that the FIR was a counterblast to a matrimonial dispute between the couple.A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the delay in lodging the FIR along with the fact that the incidents described in the...
The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed an FIR filed by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws alleging cruelty and other offences observing that the FIR was a counterblast to a matrimonial dispute between the couple.
A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the delay in lodging the FIR along with the fact that the incidents described in the FIR do not constitute any of the offences invoked in the FIR shows that it was a counterblast.
“The FIR was lodged on 9th July 2023 which is almost after a month. It is stated that due to seriousness of the matter and as the incident had occurred at the workplace, the Respondent No.2 avoided to give the report. This aspect when considered cumulatively with all other aspects goes to show that the FIR is lodged only as a counter blast to the matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2.”
The court allowed two writ petitions filed by the complainant's husband and her relatives seeking the quashing of an FIR dated July 9, 2023.
The coupled were married in February 2018 after meeting through a matrimonial site. The husband works as a Provident Fund Commissioner in Pune, while the wife serves as a judicial officer at Tasgaon Court.
According to the FIR, various matrimonial disputes arose between the couple after marriage, leading to the husband filing for divorce in 2023. The complainant in the FIR alleged that on the morning of June 7, 2023, the husband and his brother entered her judicial chambers and pressured her to sign mutual consent divorce papers. When she refused, the husband's other family members did the same thing in the afternoon. This, she said, obstructed her from discharging her official duties.
The FIR was registered for offences under section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 498A (husband or relative subjecting a woman to cruelty), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Thus the husband and is relatives approached the high court.
The court opined that the incidents narrated in the FIR did not meet the criteria to constitute the offenses alleged. The incident in the morning session did not amount to obstructing the wife, a judicial officer, in her public functions, the court stated.
The court noted that the complainant herself rose from the dias in the afternoon session upon being informed by her peon of her relatives' presence in her chambers. The relatives did not obstruct the complainant as she was already in the court hall while they remained in her chambers, the court said. Further, she continued to fulfil her official duties on that day, indicating no obstruction, the court held.
The incident described in the FIR did not indicate any physical confinement of the wife, the court said. While the husband and his relatives verbally pressured her to sign divorce papers, she still attended court sessions as usual, the court noted. The court also said that there was no evidence of force intended to deter her from discharging her duties.
The actions described, including verbal disputes and attempts to coerce the signing of divorce papers, did not amount to obstruction of public duties, wrongful confinement, assault, cruelty, or criminal intimidation, the court held. The court also highlighted the absence of any demand for property or valuable security, which is essential under Section 498A.
The court observed that the FIR was lodged almost a month after the incident. The wife, who is a judicial officer herself, cited the seriousness of the matter and the incident's occurrence at the workplace as reasons for the delay in filing the report, the court noted. However, the court opined that the delay and along with the other circumstances show that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the ongoing matrimonial dispute between the couple.
Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the evidence presented in the FIR was insufficient to support the charges, said the court. Therefore, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the court quashed the impugned FIR.
Case no. – Writ Petition Nos. 2762 and 2763 of 2023