Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently quashed an FIR filed by a woman judge against her husband and in-laws in a Section 498A (cruelty against the wife) case.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain heard a petition filed by the husband and in-laws regarding the FIR filed against them on July 09, 2023.

The judicial officer got married to the man in February 2018 after they met through a matrimonial website

Subsequently, a dispute arose between them, after which the husband refused to consummate the marriage with the wife. Consequently, a divorce petition was filed by the husband, which was still pending.

The judicial officer alleged that the husband and his brother entered her chambers and forced her to sign the divorce petition by mutual consent after threatening her. She claimed that the same act was committed by the in-laws on the same day.

The husband and the in-laws were then booked under Sections 186, 353 (criminal force to deter a public servant), 498A (cruelty), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Aggrieved by this, the husband and in-laws approached the high court to quash the FIR

The high court, in its order, noted that there was no evidence to show that the husband and his brother obstructed her from discharging official duties during the morning sessions.

The bench also mentioned that the in-laws were waiting outside the chamber, and the judicial officer voluntarily came outside her chambers

“There does not appear to be any obstruction to the wife in discharge of her public function but on the contrary, she discharged her official duties on that day and, therefore, the provisions are not attracted. The act of retiring to the chamber is a voluntary act of the informant on being told by her peon,” the order states.

The bench also found that there was no case of Section 498A made out against the husband or in-laws.

Therefore, while quashing the FIR, the bench noted that it was a perfect case where the court should exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of the court to secure the ends of justice.

Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra