In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a criminal case filed by a woman against her former husband and six of his relatives. The court found that the essential elements of the alleged offences, including cruelty and criminal breach of trust, were not established.
Court Observes Allegations Lack Substance
The bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande, in their order dated November 26, quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered in October 2019 at the Manickpur police station in Vasai. The case was filed under Indian Penal Code sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498A (cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives).
The judges noted that the couple involved are citizens of the United Kingdom and are already divorced. Their marriage, which took place in February 2002, was formally dissolved by the Liverpool family court in December 2019. The court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue would serve no purpose.
Relatives 'Roped In' Due to Family Ties
The court made a crucial observation regarding the inclusion of the husband's family members in the case. The petitioners included the ex-husband (petitioner no.1), his mother, three sisters, and two brothers-in-law (petitioners 2 to 7).
The bench remarked, "As regards petitioners 2 to 7, we find that the respondent (ex-wife) has roped in the said petitioners only because they happen to be the relatives of petitioner no.1." The judges concluded that the primary focus of the allegations was on the ex-husband, and the nature of the claims indicated a "serious difference" of opinion that led to matrimonial discord.
Why the Charges Did Not Stand
The High Court meticulously examined the allegations, which spanned incidents from 2002 to 2019. The prosecution informed the court that charges had not yet been framed. Notably, the ex-wife did not appear before the High Court during the proceedings.
Agreeing with the arguments presented by the petitioners' advocate, Ashley Cusher, the bench held that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC were not even prima facie made out.
The allegation of criminal breach of trust was contradicted by the ex-wife's own statement that the ex-husband had returned furniture and other material received during the marriage. Regarding the cruelty charges, the court found that the allegations did not demonstrate how the petitioners had demanded money to harass the woman or her parents.
The judges noted references to amounts being returned and concluded that financial exchanges during the marital life "could be said to be in the ordinary course of dealings between both of them."
The Final Verdict and Its Implications
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the seven individuals, bringing the criminal proceedings to a permanent halt. This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the application of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, especially when allegations appear to arise from acrimony rather than criminal intent.
The decision highlights that while matrimonial discord can be intense, not all disputes translate into criminal offences under the stringent provisions of laws like IPC 498A. The court's intervention prevented a prolonged legal battle for the accused, who had been facing charges for over four years.
