Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Lodged Against Match Maker After Bride Was Subjected To Cruelty

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice PK Chavan has recently set aside an FIR and chargesheet against a match maker who was booked under Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) of IPC after a bride was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her in-laws.

The high court while quashing the FIR and chargesheet said that the allegations against the applicant (Match Maker) were baseless and without any substance. The court said that even if the report under Section 173 was taken at face value, even then it did not constitute an offence.

The match maker was a Deputy General Manager at the Bank of India and was residing in West Bengal. The bride and the groom solemnized their marriage in 2018 and subsequently, the wife was subjected to cruelty and an FIR came to be registered against the husband, in-laws, and the match maker. The only role of the match maker was that of a middleman in introducing both families.

The match maker said that he had acted as a middleman in good faith and acted as a mediator between the bride and the groom. There were no allegations against him in the FIR and statement of the victim recorded by the magistrate.

The match maker had received a notice under Section 41A of CrPc from the police via email and came to know that an FIR was registered against him. The match maker was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

The court said that it was an abuse of the process of law by the investigating officer which could not be countenanced. The order stated,

“This is nothing but an abuse of process of law by the Investigating Officer which cannot be countenanced. It appears that only in her supplementary statement recorded on 25.11.2019, the respondent no.1 had, for the first time, stated that the applicant has cheated them by exploiting her father sentimentally praising her husband and in-laws that they are decent, cultured and refined and that, the boy has also a very good job in a foreign country.”

The division bench further said that the material placed on record did not disclose the commission of the cognizable or non-cognizable offense. The order read,

“The material placed before us do not disclose commission of cognizable or non-cognizable offence having been committed by the applicant. The allegations are 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 applicant.”

Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Dubey vs XYZ & Anr

Statue: Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Indian Penal Code 1860