Bombay HC Quashes FIR In Woman's Suicide Case Against Kins Who Said Husband ‘Could Have Married Better Girl’

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghwase recently quashed the FIR lodged against the relatives of the husband of a deceased woman. The said FIR was registered against the husband, his parents, and his relatives for abetting the woman's suicide.

The father of the deceased woman had filed an FIR against the husband and his relatives. It was alleged that the deceased got married to one Sayyed Lal Amir Sayyed- the accused in 2011. The FIR stated that after two months of marriage, the deceased was brought to her father’s home by her father-in-law leveling allegations against the deceased for not doing work properly and back-answering. The father of the deceased had claimed that the deceased had told him that her husband used to get drunk every day and used to abuse her. Further, it was also stated that the in-laws subjected her to ill-treatment because she did not bring the dowry of Rs. 50000.

It was further alleged that relatives of the husband visited the matrimonial house of the deceased and said that the husband would have gotten a better girl and that if the amount of Rs. 50000 was not met the deceased, she should be driven out of the house.

Subsequently, when the daughter of the informant was driven out of the house, she hanged herself and an FIR came to be registered.

The advocate for the applicants argued that the allegations were petty and general in nature. He informed the court that there was no demand, ill-treatment, or taunting nor there was any physical or mental ill-treatment. He submitted that the FIR was an attempt to falsely implicate the husband and in-laws that too after more than 6 to 7 years of marriage. Further, he argued that there was no abetment or harassment which was of such nature that would compel the deceased to commit suicide.

On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application and argued that the deceased regularly informed her father about ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws. He also submitted that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and that the husband was suspecting her character. He submitted that the continuous demand of Rs. 50000 and on failure to meet such demand, the deceased was ill-treated due to which she committed suicide.

During the admission stage, the court expressed its inclination to not grant relief to the husband and his parents after which the application for quashing for FIR against the husband and his parents were withdrawn.

With regard to the application for quashing of FIR against the relatives, the court said that the allegations were of sweeping in nature and the alleged utterance was attributed to all in chorus. Further, it was not mentioned in the FIR exactly when the relatives visited the matrimonial house. The FIR only reveals that the relatives came to the house and raised quarrels by giving a monotonous statement without specifying the details, the court noted.

It said,

“To attribute abetment, in our considered opinion, the exact time and date of visit of such applicants was essential, more particularly, to connect them to suicidal hanging. Proximity of their visit to the house of deceased and alleged suicide was very crucial to hold them liable for the offence of abetment of suicide. What exactly happened and who played which role on the date of incident is conspicuously missing from FIR as well as statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C”.

While highlighting the essentials of the offense under Section 306 of the IPC, the court said continuous harassment, instigation, and abetment coupled with mens rea was not surfacing from the record. The order read:

“Likewise even as regards to commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned, there is solitary incident alleging that they visited house of husband and deceased and said that accused husband could have been married to a better girl and she should be asked to bring money. The very essential for attracting offence under Section 306 of IPC i.e., continuous harassment, instigation, abetment coupled with mens rea is not surfacing from the record”.

Accordingly, while granting relief to the relatives i,e., applicants 4 to 7, the court said that:

“Making them face trial with such quality and nature of evidence in our considered opinion, would amount to subjecting them to injustice. It is a clear abuse of process of law only as against them. For ends of justice to meet, therefore, we are inclined to grant relief to applicant Nos.4 to 7. The cumulative effect of available material on record impels us to extend the relief sought by them".

Case title: Sayyed Lal Amir Sayyed & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.