Premlata Satish Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra

2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Applicants seek to quash the FIR No. I-106/2023 registered at Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai and Charge Sheet No.I- 152/2023 in R.C.C.No.1273/2023 pending on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vashi, Belapur, Navi Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2. The Applicant No.1 is the mother-in-law and Applicant Nos.[2] and 3 are the married sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2. The facts narrated in the FIR reveal that the marriage of Respondent No.2 and Nitin Sharma, the son of the Applicant No.1, was solemnized on 08/08/2022. This was their second marriage and each of them has a child from the previous marriage. The Respondent No.2 claims that at the time of wedding ceremony, her husband and his family members demanded several valuable gold items and cash as ‘shagun’ (good luck). When they visited Dehradhun after their marriage, instead of staying in her matrimonial home, they stayed in a hotel. Her husband made her spend Rs.1,50,000/- to purchase laptop for his son and she was made to buy gold bangles for Applicant Nos.[2] and 3 on their visit to Jagannathpuri.

4. Respondent No.2 alleged that her husband is alcoholic and would abuse and assault her. He has also retained her two mangalsutra, diamond earrings, diamond ring, diamond nose pin and two gold bangles. She claims that even when she was living separately with her husband, he would not spend enough time with her but would rather spend time with his family. She has levelled allegations of cruelty against her husband and his family members including his minor son from the previous marriage. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, crime was registered against the husband of the Respondent No.2 and his family members and upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicants submit that the allegations in the FIR as well as the other material which form part of the charge sheet, do not disclose cognizable offence, much less an offence under section 498-A of IPC. He submits that the Respondent No.2 has collected her jewelry (streedhan). He submits that the FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence and hence, this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that the facts narrated in the FIR clearly indicate that the Applicants herein had demanded gold jewelry and cash in the form of shagun. The material on record also reveals that the Applicants herein had subjected Respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, and hence, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. The Applicants have invoked the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., which can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. In State of Haryana and others v/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 204, the Apex Court has set out by way of illustrations the broad categories of cases in which the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The illustrations relevant to decide the present case are:-

9. In Geo Verghase v/s. State of Rajasthan and anr., AIR 2021 SC 4764, the Apex Court has reiterated that:-

10. In this backdrop, the only question for our consideration is whether the FIR and the other material on record which forms part of the charge sheet, discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

11. The Applicant No.1 is the mother-in-law and the Applicant No.2 is the married sister-in-law of Respondent No.2. These Applicants are alleged to have subjected Respondent No.2 to cruelty and thereby committed offence under section 498-A of IPC. The term ‘cruelty’ for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC has been specifically defined. In order to constitute an offence under section 498-A, there must be prima facie material to prove that the Applicants by their willful conduct of such a nature had driven the Respondent No.2 to commit suicide or caused grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health or that they had harassed her with a view to coercing her to satisfy unlawful demand of dowry. In Mahalaxmi v/s. The State of Karnataka, 2023 Live law (SC) 1041, the Apex Court has held that ‘one instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and invovlement in the marrital life of the complant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498-A of the IPC. ”

12. In the instant case, the Respondent No.2 and Nitin Sharma, the son of the Applicant No.1, met through a matrimonial website. They decided to marry and solemnized their marriage on 04/08/2022 with consent of their family members. The only allegations against the Applicants are that (i) the husband of Respondent No.2 had made her give gold ornaments and cash to the Applicants as shagun (good luck),

(ii) she had purchased gold bangles for the Applicant No.2 at her instance, (iii) the Applicant No.1 abused her when she expressed inability to incur household expenditure.