0
Comment(s)
*
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
The complaint was lodged by the mother on August 13, 2017. (File Photo) The Bombay High Court recently rejected a petition by a 33-year-old man seeking the quashing of an FIR registered by his wife against him, his brother and mother, and held that when serious allegations are levelled against the accused in a matrimonial dispute, the HC cannot exercise its powers and pass writ orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The woman lodged the complaint against the three, after they allegedly began treating her poorly for failing to fulfil their dowry demand. In her complaint, the woman stated that the man repeatedly forced her to have unnatural sex and was told that this would change if she complied with their demand for dowry.
On November 29, 2019, the husband, his 29-year-old brother and 60-year-old mother were booked for alleged offences punishable under sections 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting the woman to cruelty), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, among others, based on the woman’s complaint.
A division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale on January 25 passed a judgment on a writ plea filed by the trio seeking quashing of the FIR against them.
According to the complaint, the woman met the man through a matrimonial website in 2016 and after both families agreed, they got engaged in July 2016.
The woman alleged that the man forcibly established a physical relationship with her before he went abroad on a cruise. After his return, they got married in April 2017 and, thereafter, the three accused started treating her poorly and made demands of dowry, the complaint stated.
The woman also alleged that she was told that her husband would behave properly if she arranged for the dowry. The woman also made other serious allegations regarding repeated forced unnatural sex.
The HC observed, “A bare reading of complaint leading to registration of FIR shows that serious allegations have been made against all petitioners, and the ingredients of alleged offences are prima facie found in present case.”
Dismissing the writ plea, the court also said, “…we are of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).”
