IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 1999. APPLICATION NO.592 OF 1999. APPLICATION NO.592 OF 1999. Girishchandra M. Gupta. ..Applicant. versus 1. Senior Inspector of Police, Bhayander Police Station. 2. Smt. Shashi Girischandra Gupta. 3. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.G. Deshmukh, for the Applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. None for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH AUGUST,2008. : 13TH AUGUST,2008. : 13TH AUGUST,2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. When this Application was called out on 7th August 2008, none appeared for the second Respondent. Therefore, the Advocate for the Applicant was directed to serve an intimation in writing to the Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama for the second Respondent. When this Application was called out on 12th August 2008, the Advocate for the Applicant stated that the Advocate for the second Respondent has declined to accept the notice. 2. By this Application under section 482 of the - 2 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicant has sought quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the second Respondent alleging commission of offences under sections 498A, 342, 323, 504, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. On 1st April 1999, this Court issued rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to Applicant depositing a sum of Rs.3,000/- in this Court. The Farad Sheet shows that the amount has been deposited and the same has been invested. 3. The Petitioner married to the second Respondent on 9th May 1982. There were two daughters born from the wed-lock in the year 1985 and 1987. According to the case of the Applicant, between the year 1984 and 1989, the second Respondent was residing at Mandsaur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and used to casually visit Bhayander which is the place of residence of the Applicant. The allegation of the Petitioner is that at Mandsaur, the second Respondent was maintaining illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. According to the case of the Applicant, the second Respondent insisted on the Applicant executing a Deed of Divorce by mutual consent. He pointed out that the said Deed itself - 3 - records that the Applicant had given cash amount as well as property worth Rs.10 lacs to the second Respondent for her maintenance as well as maintenance of his minor daughters. 4. According to the case of the Applicant, in June 1995, the second Respondent returned back to matrimonial home at Bhayander. The Applicant allowed her to stay alongwith the daughters. The Applicant also secured admission for the daughter in local school. It is alleged that while staying at Bhayander, the second Respondent was maintaining illicit relationship with one Mr. Umesh Jadhav. When the Applicant raised an objection to the said relationship, the second Respondent demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- and assured that after receiving the sum of Rs.50,000/-, she would go back to Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh and would not return back to Bhayander. Accordingly, the Applicant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the second Respondent and on receiving the amount, the second Respondent left Bhayander for Mandsaur. It is stated that the said Umesh Jadhav brought back the second Respondent and made an attempt to forcibly enter the matrimonial home. The second Respondent lodged the F.I.R on 9th June 1996 - 4 - with the Bhayander Police Station. The Applicant was arrested and was later on enlarged on bail. According to the case of the Applicant, on 22nd June 1996, the second Respondent left a note for him and left the matrimonial home alongwith her daughters. On 28th June 1996, the Applicant filed a Petition for divorce in the Civil Court claiming divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The Applicant impleaded the said Umesh Jadhav as a co-Respondent alongwith the second Respondent. The second Respondent did not contest the said Petition and ultimately, on 29th June 1998, a decree of divorce was passed under section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. The contention of the Advocate for the Applicant is that lodging of F.I.R by the second Respondent is clearly an abuse of process of law. He pointed out that the second Respondent has not disputed the deed of divorce dated 22nd December 1989 executed by and between her and the Applicant He submitted that apart from legality of the said document, the said document shows that cash as well as property worth Rs. 10 lacs was given by the Applicant for the maintenance of the second - 5 - Respondent. The F.I.R was lodged by the second Respondent on 9th June 1996. In the said F.I.R, vague allegation has been made by the second Respondent that the Applicant demanded a sum of Rs.10 lacs for his business and the Applicant was harassing her for coercing her to bring the said amount. He pointed out that the F.I.R itself records to the fact that it was the said Umesh Jadhav who had accompanied the second Respondent from her village. He pointed out that in fact on 9th June 1996, the second Respondent and the said Umesh Jadhav tried to forcibly enter the Applicant’s residential premises. He pointed out that the said Umesh Jadhav assaulted the Applicant. He pointed out that the Applicant suffered injuries and though he visited nearest Police Station, his complaint was not accepted. However, F.I.R at the instance of the second Respondent was registered. It is stated that the Applicant filed a complaint of mis-behaviour against the concerned Police Officers with the Superintendent of Police on 14th June 1996 and the disciplinary action has been taken against the concerned Officers. He, therefore, submitted that a clear case is made out for exercising power under section 482 of the said Code. - 6 - 6. I have carefully considered the submissions. The second Respondent has not filed any reply to this Application. This Application is pending in this Court from the year 1999. The second Respondent has not disputed the execution of the purported Deed of Divorce which records that the Applicant had handed over cash and property worth Rs.10 lacs to the second Respondent for maintenance. As stated earlier, on 1st July 1996, the Applicant filed a Petition for divorce against the second Respondent to which the said Umesh Jadhav was impleaded as co-Respondent. In the said Petition, allegations of living in adultery were made against the second Respondent and the said Umesh Jadhav. Both the second Respondent and Umesh Jadhav did not appear in the said Petition. The allegations made by the Applicant were accepted by the Civil Court and a decree of divorce was passed under section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. Perusal of F.I.R filed by the second Respondent shows that even according to the case of the second Respondent, the said Umesh Jadhav had visited the second Respondent’s village and had - 7 - brought the second Respondent from the said village to Bhayander. The second Respondent has stated that the said Umesh Jadhav accompanied her and her daughters from her parent’s place to the matrimonial home in April 1996. Her case is that the said umesh Jadhav accompanied her at the instance of the Applicant. As far as the demand of Rs.10 lacs is concerned, the allegations made by the second Respondent are very vague and devoid of any particulars. It must be noted here that a Petition for divorce was filed by the Applicant after the F.I.R was lodged by the second Respondent. The second Respondent did not choose to contest the said Petition though very serious allegations were made by the Applicant against the second Respondent as regards living in adultery with the said Umesh Jadhav. 8. The Advocate for the Applicant has pointed out that disciplinary action was taken against the concerned officers of the Bhyander Police Station who had registered the F.I.R at the instance of the second Respondent. Reliance has been placed on letter 14th June 1996 sent by the Applicant to the Superintendent of Police (Thane Rural) setting out - 8 - the manner in which the complaint sought to be lodged by the Applicant was not registered and the manner in which the F.I.R was registered at the instance of the second Respondent. There are documents placed on record in the form of medical certificate of medical officer of Primary Health Centre to show that on 9th June 1996, even an Applicant suffered injuries which were mentioned in the said certificate. 9. As stated earlier, interim relief of stay of the further proceedings of the case has been operating from 1st April 1999. There is no reply filed by the second Respondent to the allegations and averments made in the Application. In view of the peculiar facts and in view of the unchallenged decree of divorce passed by the Civil Court on the ground of adultery, the contiuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R lodged by the second Respondent is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It will be unjust to continue the prosecution on the basis of the allegations made in the said F.I.R. Apart from the fact that the action of the second Respondent of filing F.I.R lacks bonafides, continuation of proceedings will cause undue harassment to the - 9 - Applicant. 10. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be invoked. 11. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). A sum of Rs. 3,000/- deposited by the Applicant towards the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the Applicant on expiry of period of four months from today. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]