Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a case against a man and his family registered under section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting women to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that a woman, a newly-wed daughter-in-law, was pitted against the might of the five petitioners, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues.
HC noted allegations against sisters-in-law to compel complainant to show house cleaned by her on a WhatsApp video call
A bench comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, while refusing to quash the case against petitioners – husband, father-in-law and three sisters-in-law of the complainant woman, noted the allegations against the petitioners, including the allegations against the sisters-in-law pertaining to compelling the complainant woman to show them the house cleaned by her on WhatsApp video call.
“The allegations against the sisters-in-law pertaining to compelling the complainant to show them the house cleaned by her on WhatsApp video call appears to be a peculiar and a sadist manner of ill treatment. This is enough to cause apprehension in the mind of the complainant that, there was danger to her life and limb at the hands of the Petitioners,” the bench said.
What did the woman say in her complaint?
The specific contention of the complainant woman was that the three sisters-in-law although residing in their separate houses indulged in interfering in the household of their brother and in one such instance, they deliberately removed the house help from their brother’s house and directed her to do all the household work herself. The three sisters-in-law directed her to show them via WhatsApp video call the house as cleaned by her. They persistently directed her by text messages on her phone regarding what she should make for break-fast, lunch and dinner. They also made a WhatsApp group comprising of all the petitioners and they continued to berate her and complain about her to her husband, who abused her and dug up quarrels on petty issues, suspected her character and abused her and refused to have conjugal relations with her on the pretext that he was diabetic, the complainant woman said.
The complainant woman further submitted that on October 10,2022, one of the sisters-in-law called her in the night and started abusing her regarding cleaning the house and her husband and other family members also joined her sister-in-law and next day, all the three sisters-in-law came to her house and abused her in filthy language and asked her to leave the house. They all demanded gifts from her parents and ultimately, they all quarrelled with her and drove her out of the house and they retained all the jewellery comprising her ‘streedhan’ with them and have refused to return the same, the complainant woman said in her complaint.
What did the petitioners argue?
The counsel representing the petitioners argued before the court that the complaint is nothing but a matrimonial dispute, which has been given a criminal colour by misusing the due process of law and that the complainant has influenced the police and had threatened to implicate them in false criminal cases. The counsel further submitted that the complainant is trying to extort money from the petitioners by issuing a notice through her advocate demanding monthly maintenance and that the section 498-A of the IPC is being abused.
Complainant woman sought dismissal of petition for quashing of FIR
The counsel representing the complainant woman sought dismissal of the petition by petitioners seeking quashing of the case, submitting that the petitioners had treated the complainant woman with utmost amount of cruelty as is contemplated under section 498-A of the IPC.
The High Court, after going through the contents of the FIR in detail, noted that specific and categoric roles are attributed to each petitioner independently and collectively and said that “Sole aim appears to be to extort money from her and her parents. This is clear from the fact that, even after driving her out of the matrimonial home, they have refused to hand over her ‘Streedhan’ comprising of valuable jewellery and her articles.”
Allegations in FIR prima facie disclose commission of alleged offences: High Court
The High Court, after hearing the submissions and taking note of material before it, said that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of the alleged offences.
“The allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of the alleged offences. For the reasons set out above, we are not inclined to quash the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom. In this view of the matter, the Petition is dismissed,” the High Court said while refusing to quash the FIR.
