Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case lodged against a man by his wife, 26 years after marriage while noting that allegations against him were equally vague as against his other family members, who got the relief from the high court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal also said that the wife did not contest the plea filed by the man and his family members for quashing of the FIR and the charge sheet not only before the high court but the top court too despite service of notice.

Appellant Avinash filed a special leave petition against the Bombay High Court's order of the Aurangabad bench on March 20, 2023.

His counsel submitted that the high court, by the impugned order, had quashed the proceedings initiated against all other accused except the husband, him, on the finding that the allegations made in the FIR were completely vague, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Preeti Gupta and Another vs State of Jharkhand' (2010) and Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs Sate of UP.

"We have gone through the FIR and find that the allegations are equally vague as against the husband-appellant also," the bench said.

The court also noted that before the high court, the complainant wife did not contest the proceedings and the high court had appointed an amicus curiae to represent her.

Before this Court also, despite service being complete, she has chosen not to appear, it pointed out.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the FIR is a complete misuse and abuse of process of law," the bench said.

The bench allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned proceedings against the husband also.

The high court, in its order, had said, "This is a shocking and unfortunate case where respondent no 2 informant wife has levelled allegations against father-in-law, brother-in-law, two sisters-in-law along with husband when the wife has spent more than 24 years in the matrimonial house during which time, she has had 24 years old daughter and 21 years old son out of the matrimony".

However, after going through the FIR and statement recorded by the police of witnesses, the high court had found that the allegations against four relatives of the husband, including against the 94-year-old father were vague and lacked specific role.

Both the son and the daughter of the applicant had also stated that their mother was acting in a strange manner and quarrelling with their father for the last two-three years. They also said that their mother had left the matrimonial home on June 12, 2020 after leading a long married life.

The high court, however, had declined to provide any relief to the husband, while quashing the case against the relatives.

The FIR lodged by the wife in Beed district on April 29, 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC alleged that the husband used to bear her due to an extramarital affair.

Case Title: Avinash vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr