The Bombay High Court while quashing a criminal case under Section 498A IPC has pointed out Police's lack of precaution in doing investigation and prejudiced approach in handling such cases.

The Court was considering an Application filed by Husband and his Relatives seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh observed, ".....nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigation when it comes to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. This offence is now taken in a casual manner by the police under the presumption with which they are dealing many times with the First Information Reports and this is one of such an example of misuse. Thus, these police officers are proceeding with the investigation with some presumptions or with prejudicial mind. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Rashmi S. Kulkarni while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the FIR would show that all the family members were unnecessarily dragged the marriage between Applicant No.1 (Husband) and Respondent No.3 (Wife) as she resided hardly for two months in the matrimonial house and intentionally cooked up a story with some ulterior motive.

He further submitted that the statements recorded are of parents of the wife and her brothers only, which are copy paste in nature and there was no attempt by Investigating Officer to visit the residence of the Husband and make inquiry of the persons in the neighbourhood on allegation of assault. The Counsel contended that as per the Police records, she waited for her father before making the complaint and the FIR was filed with vengeance.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Respondent No.3 had told about the treatment given to her to the parents and brother and that is natural and in fact, after spending amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on the marriage, still there was demand of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry. It was contended that duration of the stay may not then carry weightage if the harassment is of such a magnitude.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that in matrimonial disputes suppression of facts carry importance as marriage stands on the footing of faith, feelings and respect for each other. It questioned the silence of Wife about her own occupation as Medical Practitioner and in service or her even qualification and false portrayal as a housewife.

"Even in the statements of witnesses her occupation is silent/not disclosed. She has also not stated that after the marriage for how much time she was at Manmad i.e. the matrimonial home, where the parentsin-law are residing. She has also not stated as to when the husband took her to Kharghar, but only states that after some days she was taken to Mumbai by husband........A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused, pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing pillow on her face and applicant No.1’s second marriage should be performed. The applicants are well educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter," the Court observed.

Further taking in account the residency arrangement claims, the Court concluded that suppression of facts by the informant is glaring and can be said to be with a mala fide intention.

It also raised doubt on delay in lodging the FIR and observed, "It is easy to make allegations against others, but when it comes to false allegations, they are hard to prove. This is the classic example of misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."

The Court was also surprised at the copy paste statements of parents and brother of informant and reprimanded Police over their lethargic and prejudicial investigation.

"The investigation has been done by Mr. M.M. Lone, Police Head Constable, B.No.2146 attached to Vimantal Police Station, Nanded. When the alleged acts of cruelty had taken place at Kharghar, Mumbai or Manmad, Nashik, he has not taken efforts to visit the place and make inquiry with the neighbouring persons. Very interestingly he has drawn a panchnama of spot on 01.04.2024 with the help of two persons from Nanded of the place/house of father of respondent No.3. This shows that nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigation when it comes to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code," the Court observed.

The FIR was thus quashed and the Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ajay Rajendra Khare vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:15731-DB)

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocate Rashmi S. Kulkarni

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor A.R. Kale, Advocate M.M. Parghane

Click here to read/ download Order







Bombay High CourtJustice Vibha KankanwadiJustice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Sheetal Joon