A complicated marriage dispute is affecting the legal process: The Bombay High Court has dismissed an FIR filed by a judicial officer against their in-laws.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Judicial Officer’s FIR against his in-laws after determining that there was no evidence of confinement or trespass. The Court noted that both parties had misused the legal system. The Aurangabad Bench was reviewing a Petition from the Petitioners asking to cancel the FIR filed under various sections of the IPC. The Criminal Writ Petition also included requests for an investigation into an Ad-hoc District Judge for allegedly abusing his position and collaborating with police to file false charges against the Petitioners.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar and Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, stated that pursuing criminal proceedings in such cases would misuse the legal process. Advocate N.K. Tungar represented the Petitioners, while Advocate A.B. Kadethankar represented the Respondents. The FIR was filed by an Ad-hoc District Judge, claiming that the accused conspired to gain maintenance benefits through his wife, who suffers from schizophrenia and is under expert care. It was alleged that in June 2019, after his transfer to Nanded, her family was obstructing medical assistance to exploit her mental health for financial gain.
The accused individuals continued to exploit the schizophrenia of the wife, encouraging her to pursue multiple maintenance claims despite a prior settlement. They were also accused of unlawfully entering the home with criminal intent, prompting her to make false claims and initiate legal actions against her husband to gain financial support. The applicants in the Criminal Writ Petition include the wife’s parents, brother, and other relatives. They argued that the husband had mistreated his wife, using her mental health condition as an excuse. They claimed that the police should have dismissed the case, but instead, they filed false complaints due to the husband’s influence as a Judicial Officer.
The court noted that there were 23 criminal and civil cases filed between the parties, including charges under Section 498-A, actions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, maintenance requests from the wife, a divorce petition from the husband, and various FIRs. The court observed that this complicated marital dispute was misusing the legal system. It was challenging to determine who was at fault, but it was clear that both parties had engaged the police and courts extensively.
The FIR and charge sheet did not show that the petitioners were present during the incident. Although the charge sheet included charges under Sections 341, 342, 384, 451, 452, 109 r/w. 34 of IPC, the Bench found no evidence to support these charges. Additionally, the wife’s statement indicated that she lived in a flat with her parents and children by her own choice, with no evidence that any accused had confined her. Therefore, the Bench partially granted the Criminal Writ Petitions, canceling the First Information Report and halting the related criminal proceedings.
Cause Title: X vs. State Of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation-2024:BHC-AUG:27073-DB]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate N.K. Tungar
Respondents: Advocates A.B. Kadethankar, APP A.V. Lavte, Advocates Vishal A. Kakade, Shaikh Majhar A. Jahagirdar
