"Omnibus allegations" made u/S 498A & 377 IPC; Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail to husband, father-in-law

While granting anticipatory bail to husband and father-in-law of a complainant, Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court, has observed that the allegations when perused, were general and vague, without any specification.

An anticipatory bail application had been moved before the High Court by the husband and father-in-law of the complainant.

On April 21, 2022, complainant lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 377, 406, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her entire matrimonial family, including her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and three sisters-in-law.

As per the FIR, the marriage of the complainant and her husband was solemnized in 2017, and her father had spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000 which included Rs.5,00,000 cash, in their marriage.

FIR stated that she was pressurized by her husband to bring Rs. 1 crore from her parental house, and on refusing to do so, one night her husband had unnatural sex with her. She also stated that she did not report this incident to anyone.

Later, on September 30, 2019, when she delivered a child, it is alleged that the entire expense was borne by her father.

It was further alleged by the complainant that on December 11, 2018, when she was alone at home with her father-in-law, she revealed to him about her husband’s extramarital affair responding to which he uttered unpleasant words. She also alleged to have been assaulted by her father-in-law.

Court noted that the husband was alleged to have committed unnatural sex, but the same was not reported to anyone, and incidents with her father-in-law had also not been reported until April 21, 2022.

Also, FIR filed by the complainant was found to have been a counterblast to the FIR filed by her mother-in-law, who alleged that she was pushed from the staircase resulting in injuries.

In view of such facts, Court held that the nature of the accusation faced by the two applicants was without any specifications, and were prima facie a result of their strained relationship.

Case Title: Ashwin Babubhai Prajapati & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra