1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR bearing CR No.998 of 2020 dated 19th October, 2020 registered with the Vijaypur Naka Police Station, District Solapur (City) for offences punishable under sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and charge-sheet No.102 of 2022 filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur for the offences as alleged in the FIR.

2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioners (Accused Nos.4 and 5) are doctors by profession residing at Solapur. The Respondent No.2- Complainant married Accused No.1- the brother of Petitioners- Parvez Javed Sheikh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the husband’) on 20th March, 2020 as per Muslim rites and ceremony. The Respondent No.2 since the day of marriage had been telling her husband that she was forced into the said marriage, due to which the husband had not consummated their marriage. For the said reason, the husband had then along with the Petitioners and his parents approached the Kazi office to proceed with divorce proceedings. After multiple rounds of meetings, the husband denied consummating the marriage and filed divorce proceedings against the Respondent No.2 before the learned Family Court, Solapur in September, 2020.

3. In retaliation to the said divorce proceedings, the Respondent No.2 filed a complaint dated 25th September, 2020 with the Mahila Nivaran Kendra, Solapur against the husband, the Petitioners and parents of the husband, alleging mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law towards her for the demand of dowry. It was also alleged in the complaint that Respondent No. 2 was willing to cohabit with the husband and did not want to divorce the husband, to which the husband and his family including the Petitioners had informed the Kazi office that the husband shall not cohabit with her and that the Respondent No.2 should agree to the divorce.

4. The Respondent No. 2 has alleged that on 26.04.2020, her husband and mother-in-law had demanded ten lakh rupees from her for the education of the Petitioner No.1. Upon her denial to bring money from her maternal house, she was physically assaulted by them.

On 27.04.2020 at around 8:00 am, the Respondent No.2 had called her brother Nabisaab Moinuddin Jamkhandi and informed him to come to her matrimonial house. She has further alleged that her in-laws had physically assaulted her in front of her brother and locked the gate of the house, thereby restraining Respondent No.2 and her brother from leaving the house. Then, with the help of Police Constable Lakshman Vasekar, they were able to leave the house. Since then, the Respondent No.2 is residing at her maternal house.

5. The present FIR came to be registered on 19th October, 2020 by the Respondent No.2 with the Vijapur Naka Police Station, District Solapur (City) against the husband, the present Petitioners and parents of the husband, alleging that within 3 days of marriage the Respondent No.2 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and demanded dowry. The charge-sheet was filed in May, 2022 and criminal proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case (R.C.C.) No.700 of 2022 came to be intiated against all the accused before the learned Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur.

6. The present Writ Petition was admitted on 26th June, 2023 and interim relief was granted by way of stay on criminal proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.700 of 2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that, the present FIR came to be registered on 19th October, 2020 i.e. after 6 months the Respondent No.2 left the husband’s house, alleging that from 23rd March, 2020 till 27th April, 2020 the Respondent No.2 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty in demand for dowry. He submitted that there is inordinate unexplained delay of 6 months in registering of the FIR. He submitted that FIR was filed only after divorce proceedings were initiated by the Accused No.1-Husband against the Respondent No.2. He further submitted that the FIR does not specify any particular date, time or act of offence towards the Respondent No.2 by the Petitioners, and that the Respondent No.2 and her husband cohabited merely for 36 days. He has also submitted that the Petitioners resided separately and not in matrimonial house of the Respondent No.2, and that they are practicing doctors with no criminal antecedents. They have been named in the FIR only on account of their relationship with the Accused No.1. He further submitted that no material has been brought on record to establish their involvement in the said act. He also invited my attention to the statements of witnesses viz. Parvin Moinuddin Jamkhandi (mother of the Respondent No.2), Moinuddin Nabisaab Jamkhandi (father of the Respondent No.2) and Nabisaab Moinuddin Jamkhandi (brother of the Respondent No.2) and Bhimakshankar Siddhappa Kegainkar (neighbour of the Accused No.1), recorded by the police suggesting that there is no specific involvement of the Petitioners in the alleged offences. He has prayed for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet.

9. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court regarding the quashing of FIR, arraying the relatives of the husband in FIR for offences under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and instituing proceedings against the relatives, and quashing of FIR qua such relatives who are arraigned for name sake with no specific offence against them. He specifically relied upon the judgments of Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.((2010) 7 SCC 667), Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.((2022) 6 SCC 599) and Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.((2012) 10 SCC 741).

10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1-State argued and submitted that the FIR should not be quashed qua the Petitioners.

11. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, opposed the Petition and stated that Respondent No.2 was harassed by the Petitioners and their family for want of dowry. He submitted that FIR is genuine and was not filed with any malafide intention. He submitted that FIR need not be quashed against the Petitioners as there is already a stay on the criminal proceedings before the learned trial court.

12. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. On bare perusal of the FIR and the charge-sheet, prima facie no specific act of cruelty has been attributed by the Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners. A casual reference of their names have been made in the FIR for the sake of lodging of the FIR against them with no specific allegation of active involvment in the said offence alleged.

13. On perusal of the statement of Ms. Parvin Moinuddin Jamkhandi who is the mother of the Respondent No.2, recorded by the Police, which is at page no.58 of the Petition, it clearly suggests that no specific offence has been alleged against the present Petitioners. Also, on reading of the statements of Mr. Moinuddin Nabisaab Jamkhandi who is the father of the Respondent No.2 which is at page No.60 of the Writ Petition and Mr. Nabisaab Moinuddin Jamkhandi who is the brother of the Respondent No.2 which is at page No.62 of the Writ Petition, it is clear that no role has been attributed against the present Petitioners, rather what can be seen is a mere passing reference made in general without any active involvement in the said act as alleged. The statement of Mr. Bhimakshankar Siddhappa Kegainkar who is the neighbour of the Accused No.1 is at page No.64 of the Writ Petition. Upon reading of the same, no role is seen to be attributed to the Petitioners.

14. The Apex Court in the judgment of Preeti Gupta & Anr. (supra) has made the following observations:

                    “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

                    31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under:

                    “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

                    Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means—

                    (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

                    (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

                    32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

                    33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

                    34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

                    35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

                    36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

                    37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”

15. The Apex Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. (supra) has observed as follows:

                    “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in 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.

                    21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”

16. The Apex Court in the judgment of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. (supra) in regards to offence registered under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the relatives of the husband has made following observations in the paragraphs as under:

                    “15. ...The facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-laws' house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant's husband as to how they could be implicated in the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra, including his parents.

                    20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

                    21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad((2000) 3 SCC 693) wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: (SCC p. 698, para 12)

                    “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.”

                    The view taken by the Judges in that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

                    22. In yet another case reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana((2003) 4 SCC 675) it was observed that: (SCC p. 682, para 14)

                    “14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to [punish the] husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.”

                    But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498-A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent the woman from settling earlier. Thus, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.”

                    24. … The facts in that matter on this aspect were although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are the sister and brother of the complainant's husband and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against them.

17. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements of the parents, brother of the Respondent No. 2, the neighbour of the Accused No.1, no active role is attributed to the Petitioners in commission of the alleged offences and no material is brought on record to conclude that offences are made out against the Petitioners. Taking into consideration the catena of judgments of the Apex Court with reference to offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua the relatives of the husband and their involvement in the said act, it is in my opinion a fit case to quash the FIR, charge-sheet filed thereof and criminal proceedings instituted. It shall be unjust to let the Petitioners face the trial only on the basis of a mere reference as general allegation without attributing a specific role of Petitioners’ involvement in demand of dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the Accused No.1-husband. Turning to the question of quashing of FIR, the Apex Court in the judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.(1992 SCC (Cri) 426) has observed as under:

                    “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 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 have given 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 defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible 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 first 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 first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers 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 officer 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 just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

                    (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

                    (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.

                    103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

18. Taking into consideration the dictum of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra), I am constrained that this is a fit case for quashing. I, am therefore, inclined to allow the present Petition and pass the following order:

ORDER:

(a) The First Information Report bearing CR No. 0998 of 2020 dated 19th October, 2020 registered with the Vijaypur Naka Police Station, District Solapur (City) for offences punishable under sections 498A, 341, 323, 504 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the charge-sheet bearing No. 102 of 2022 filed in Regular Criminal Case No. 700 of 2022 pending before the learned Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur, is hereby quashed and set-aside qua the Petitioners.

(b) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

(c) The Petition is disposed of accordingly.