FIR quashed on the basis of suspicion: Bombay High Court

 on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 1 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.146 OF 2021Naval Ashok Agarwal R at 903A Lady Ratan Towers D.S. Road Gandhinagar Upper Worli Mumbai 400018.]]]] … PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra(Through Worli Police Station Mumbai.)]]]2.Riddhi Sagar Agarwal R at Venus Apartments ‘F’ Block FlatNo.58 R.G. Thadani Marg Worli Mumbai 400 018.]]]] … Respondents…Mr. I.M. Chagla senior counsel with Ms. Darius Khambata seniorcounsel with Mr. Jimmy Avasia Mr. Pranav Badheka i b DasturKalambi & Associates for the petitioner.Mr. J.P. Yagnik A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State.Mr. Satish Maneshinde i b Ms. Anandini Fernandes for respondentNo.2.…AJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 2 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odt CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE JJ. RESERVED ON : 12TH FEBRUARY 2021.PRONOUNCED ON: 01ST APRIL 2021.JUDGMENT: registered at the behest of respondent No.2(original complainant) his sister in law on the ground that theallegations made in the FIR do not make out ingredients of theoffences alleged at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with theconsent of the learned counsel for the parties.3.Shorn of unnecessary details the sequence of events leadingto filing of the present petition are that the petitioner’s brother gotmarried to respondent No.2 on 19.01.2014. On 14.04.2016 a sonwas born to them. The petitioner states in the petition that hegot married in the year 2013 and that he lives with his wife separate from his brother and respondent No.2. He used to meetrespondent No.2 occasionally at family get togethers and functionsAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 3 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtand that he has met parents of respondent No.2 on few occasionsduring such family functions.4.On or about 18.03.2020 respondent No.2 her husband i.e.petitioner’s brother and their son went to Mahabaleshwar to stay inthe bungalow of father of respondent No.2. The parents ofrespondent No.2 were also in Mahabaleshwar in the said bungalowand while all of them had gone to stay there for a short while dueto the Covid 19 pandemic and the consequent lockdowns all ofthem stayed at Mahabaleshwar for almost 4 months. On15.07.2020 the mother of the petitioner informed him that the sonof respondent No.2 had informed his father i.e. the petitioner’sbrother about an alleged incident of sexual abuse by his grandfatheri.e. the father of respondent No.2. This had led to a quarrelbetween respondent No.2 and petitioner’s brother and on16.07.2020 they returned with their son to Mumbai. In view of theserious allegation made against the father of respondent No.2 therewere attempts made to settle the discord.5.But things came to a head when on 27.07.2020 respondentNo.2 petitioner’s brother and mother went to the Police Station atWorli Mumbai. The petitioner also reached the said police station.The petitioner’s brother proceeded to lodge a complaint in thepolice station against his father in law for having allegedly sexuallyabused his grandchild while respondent No.2 in another room inAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 4 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtthe police station lodged a complaint against the petitioner’sbrother and mother. But before the complaints could be fullyrecorded a police officer on duty intervened and suggested thatsince it was a family dispute the same ought to be amicably settled.Thereafter the parties returned home. According to the petitioner this was the first occasion after respondent No.2 had returned fromMahabaleshwar that the petitioner had met her.6.It appears that there were attempts made to amicably settlethe dispute and that on 31.07.2020 the parties had met for findinga solution. According to the petitioner an agreement was reachedand the father of respondent No.2 was supposed to give certainstatement in writing but eventually the same did not work out.Thereafter attempts were made to take the son of respondent No.2to a child psychologist and when the acrimony between respondentNo.2 and her husband i.e. the petitioner’s brother increased further eventually on 25 26.08.2020 the petitioner’s brother sentcomplaints to various police stations as also the Child WelfareCommittee for registration of offences against the father ofrespondent No.2 under the Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act 2012J.odtpetitioner’s brother filed a writ petition before this Court in whichon 28.08.2020 notice was issued. It is an admitted position thatthe petitioner’s brother is an advocate.7.Thereafter on 29.08.2020 statement of petitioner’s brotherwas recorded and an FIR bearing C.R. No. 115 2020 was registeredunder Section 377 of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 4and 5 of the POCSO Act at the Cuff Parade Police Station Mumbai against the father of respondent No.2. On 31.08.2020respondent No.2 caused an FIR to be registered at the PoliceStation Worli Mumbai against her husband i.e. petitioner’sbrother the petitioner himself and his mother under sections 498A 344 406 504 506 read with 34 of the IPC. This FIR is the subjectmatter of the present writ petition wherein the petitioner hasprayed that this court ought to invoke its extraordinary power underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India as also inherent powerunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceduretoquash the FIR at least insofar as the petitioner is concerned.8.According to the petitioner a bare reading of the FIR andcontents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 would showthat insofar as the petitioner is concerned the allegations are vague non specific and they do not disclose any of the ingredients of theaforesaid offences. By placing reliance upon settled position of lawpertaining to the situations in which this court can exercise itsAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 6 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtpower to quash an FIR the petitioner contends that the presentpetition deserves to be allowed. It is also brought to the notice ofthis court that in a separate proceeding the petitioner has beengranted anticipatory bail.9.When this petition was listed on 22.01.2021 learned counselappearing for respondent No.2 sought time to file reply. Whilegranting time for filing reply this Court directed that in casecharge sheet was not filed the same would not be filed till the nextdate of hearing without seeking leave of this Court. The petitionwas finally heard on 12.02.2021 and judgment was reserved. Thead interim order passed by this Court was directed to be continuedtill pronouncement of judgment however it was clarified that therewas no stay to investigation into the matter.10.Mr. I.M. Chagla learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner alongwith Mr. Darius Khambata senior counsel submitted that the FIR in question deserved to be quashed at leastinsofar as the petitioner was concerned. Learned senior counselread the contents of the FIR and submitted that none of theingredients of the alleged offences were made out against thepetitioner. It was submitted that respondent No.2 had made vagueand non specific allegations against the petitioner while the thrustof her anger and grievance was against the brother of the petitioneri.e. her husband. The genesis of the dispute between theAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 7 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtpetitioner’s brother and respondent No.2 was the matrimonialdiscord between them precipitated in a large measure due to thealleged incident that took place concerning the father of respondentNo.2 and the son of the petitioner’s brother and respondent No.2.It was submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with eitherthe said incident or the cascading effect that it had on thematrimonial relations between respondent No.2 and petitioner’sbrother. 11.It was reiterated that the petitioner lives separately from hisbrother and respondent No.2 that he had met respondent No.2and her parents occasionally on family functions that the relationsbetween the petitioner and respondent No.2 had been cordial withno reason for any dispute and that the vague and non specificallegations made in the FIR were for the reason that respondentNo.2 sought to include the petitioner along with his brother in thefocus of her ire caused by the matrimonial discord. Learned seniorcounsel also brought to the notice of this Court an earlier allegedwritten complaint dated 13.08.2020 submitted before the police byrespondent No.2. It was submitted that a bare reading of the saiddetailed written complaint also demonstrated that no specificallegations were levelled against the petitioner and in fact therewere contradictions between the said written complaint dated13.08.2020 and the oral complaint leading to registration of theaforesaid FIR dated 31.08.2020. It was submitted that since theAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 8 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtvague allegations made against the petitioner did not demonstrateany of the ingredients of the offences alleged the FIR deserved tobe quashed so as to relieve the petitioner from the harassment andembarrassment of facing an unnecessary trial. Learned seniorcounsel relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. 1 and Keki HormusjiGharda Vs. Mehervan Rustomji Irani 2 as also judgments of thisCourt in the case of Shabnam Sheikh Vs. State 3 and Anand L.Kalwani Vs. State4.12.On the other hand Mr. Satish Maneshinde learned counselappearing for respondent No.2 submitted that a reading of thecomplaint and the FIR demonstrated that the offences werejustifiably registered against all the accused including the petitionerbefore this Court. It was submitted that the FIR was not supposedto be an encyclopedia of the events and that the contents of thecomplaint and FIR in the present case were sufficient to trigger aninvestigation into the matter against the petitioner. It was submittedthat such an FIR did warrant a detailed investigation and thattherefore the petition ought not to be entertained by this Court.The FIR did not deserve to be nipped in the bud insofar as thepetitioner was concerned because investigation into the matterwould bring out sufficient material for levelling charges against the1(2012) 10 SCC 7412(2009) 6 SCC 4753Judgment and Order dated 15 10 2020 in Cri. Application No.11144Judgment and Order dated 04 05 2005 in Cri. Writ Petition No.6005AJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 9 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtpetitioner along with the other accused persons and that the matterdeserved to go to trial. It was emphasized that there were as manyas 17 litigations pending between the petitioner’s brother andrespondent No.2 and that much acrimony had been generatedbetween the parties.13.The learned counsel submitted that this Court ought to lookinto the written complaint dated 13.08.2020 along with thecomplaint and FIR registered on 31.08.2020 to consider thecontentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted thatthe husband of respondent No.2 i.e. the petitioner’s brother is anadvocate and that the entire family of the petitioner is using itsknowledge of law and its familiarity with the court system topressurize respondent No.2 and her parents into submission whichwas a factor this Court needs to consider while deciding the presentwrit petition. According to learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.2 any interference at this stage at the hands of thisCourt would not be in the interest of justice and that theinvestigation ought to be permitted to be completed.14.Mr. Yagnik learned A.P.P. appeared on behalf of therespondent State and submitted copy of the investigation papers toindicate the investigation carried out till date on the basis of theaforesaid FIR.AJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 10 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odt15.Before we consider the contentions raised on behalf of therival parties it is relevant to note that this Court never granted stayof investigation into the aforesaid FIR registered at the behest ofrespondent No.2. By order dated 22.01.2021 this Court had onlydirected that charge sheet qua the petitioner may not be filed tillthe next date of hearing. The investigation papers show that theinvestigation has not progressed significantly. Learned counsel forrespondent No.2 did submit before this court that the investigationremained dormant at the behest of respondent No.2 for some timebecause attempts were being made to bring about an amicablesettlement between the parties considering that as many as 17litigations are pending the root cause of which is the matrimonialdiscord between respondent No.2 and the petitioner’s brother which is embroiled in acrimony following the nature of allegationlevelled by the petitioner’s brother against the father of respondentNo.2. Therefore we find that the investigation has progressed at avery slow pace if at all.16.Be that as it may we are considering this writ petition on thebasis of the material that has been brought to our notice and byapplying the settled position of law concerning quashing of theFIR. In order to examine as to whether the said FIR deserves to bequashed thereby aborting investigation and further steps insofar asthe petitioner before the court is concerned it becomes necessary toread the FIR in detail so as to analyze as to whether ingredients ofAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 11 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtthe alleged offences against the accused who has approached thiscourt are even prima facie made out. In the present case by thevery nature of statements made in the complaint leading toregistration of FIR the cognizable offences alleged against thepetitioner are under Sections 406 498A and 344 of the IPC. Theoffence under Section 406 of the IPC on the face of it is notrelatable to the petitioner as the allegations in respect thereof are allmade against the brother of the petitioner. The offences underSections 504 and 506 of the IPC are non cognizable. Section 498Aof the IPC pertains to subjecting a woman to cruelty either mentalor physical the term “cruelty” being specifically defined in the saidprovision. Section 344 of the IPC pertains to wrongful confinementfor 10 or more days with wrongful confinement being defined inSection 340 of the IPC.17.A perusal of the complaint and the FIR dated 31.08.2020shows that the petitioner has been specifically named at two places.In one place it is stated that the petitioner used to come repeatedlyto the house of respondent No.2 to keep an eye on her and he wasnot allowing respondent No.2 to meet members of her family. Atanother place the petitioner has been named along with his brotherand mother to state generally that from the date of marriage ofrespondent No.2 on 19.01.2014 the said persons till date hadrepeatedly asked respondent No.2 to bring money from her father that they used to taunt her abuse and threaten her thereby causingAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 12 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtmental harassment to her.18.Insofar as the allegations levelled against the petitioner alongwith his brother and mother pertaining to harassment meted out torespondent No.2 from the date of her marriage are concerned thesaid allegations are generalized non specific and in any case nospecific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. In fact the name of the petitioner is mentioned in this context withomnibus statement regarding alleged mental harassment caused torespondent No.2. This has to be appreciated in the backdrop thatwhen there is matrimonial discord and acrimony between husbandand wife there is a tendency to vent out anger against the husbandby roping in as many relatives of the husband as possible. Thetendency appears to be to get back at the husband by makingallegations against all family members so that the consequentcriminal proceedings disturb the life of not only the husband but allhis family members and relatives.19.It is for this reason that Courts have to carefully analyze thestatement of the informant to verify as to whether plausibleallegations have been made out against specific persons sought tobe arraigned as accused so that persons against whom general vague and non specific allegations are made are not forced to facethe rigors of investigation charges and consequent trial. It isincumbent upon the Court to ensure that a person is not casuallyAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 13 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtmade to face such rigors when the genesis of the grievance of theinformant is an acrimonious matrimonial discord which essentiallyis between the husband and wife. Although an FIR can certainlynot be an encyclopedia of facts and events leading up to the FIR inmatters where such allegations are sought to be made against theentire family of the husband the court needs to adopt an approachthat would not only take care of the genuine grievances of the wife but also of relatives of the husband who are sought to be roped inand swallowed into the vortex of the dispute between the husbandand wife.20.In such situations factors like the relatives of the husband notliving in the matrimonial house the complainant not stating in thecomplaint that such relatives stay in the matrimonial house or evenabout any day to day contact and interaction with such relatives become very relevant. There need to be specific allegations anddescription of events in such complaints which have their genesis ina matrimonial discord to indicate that at least insofar as suchrelatives of the husband are concerned the investigation needs toproceed. In situations where general vague and non specificallegations are made and basic ingredients of the alleged offencesare not made out the FIR can be quashed insofar as such accusedrelatives of the husband are concerned. In this context learnedsenior counsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in relying onparagraph 20 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in theAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 14 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtcase of Geeta Mehrotraand paragraph 14 of the judgmentof this Court in the case of Shabnam SheikhJ.odtprevented from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.This would require the person being prevented to proceed beyondsuch limits. Illustrations appended to Section 340 of the IPC makeit very clear that the accused must necessarily by his actions demonstrate the intent of preventing the person from proceedingbeyond certain circumscribing limits. It is only in suchcircumstances that the ingredients of the offense of wrongfulconfinement can be said to be made out. Section 344 of the IPCpertains to wrongful confinement for 10 or more days therebyindicating that there must be material to even prima facie show thatsuch wrongful confinement continued for 10 or more days.23.In this context learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Keki Hormusji Gharda2 Bom. C.R. 720AJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 16 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtso.24.In the present case the specific allegation made against thepetitioner in the complaint and the FIR dated 31.08.2020 is thatthe petitioner allegedly used to repeatedly visit the house ofrespondent No.2 to keep an eye on her and he allegedly preventedher from meeting her family members. Such a general allegationdoes not even prima facie show the ingredients of the offence underSection 344 of the IPC on the touchstone of definition of wrongfulconfinement as given in Section 340 thereof. We are of the opinionthat such an allegation does not even prima facie indicate thealleged wrongful confinement of respondent No.2 for 10 or moredays for the matter to proceed further against the petitioner.25.Insofar as offence under Section 498A of the IPC isconcerned the petitioner has been named towards the end of thecomplaint leading to registration of the FIR wherein general omnibus and non specific allegations have been made. Thepetitioner has been named along with his brother and mother forhaving caused mental harassment to respondent No.2 by claimingthat from the date of her marriage with the petitioner’s brother there were demands made for money from her father and that shewas subjected to threats and abuses. We are of the opinion that thethrust of the allegations in the complaint leading to registration ofthe FIR are not against the petitioner and he has been named in theAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 17 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtcontext of general statements and allegations levelled by respondentNo.2. As noted above in such cases there is a pronouncedtendency on the part of the complainant to rope in relatives of thehusband due to the anger generated in the complainant against herhusband in the backdrop of acrimony and bitterness in theirmatrimonial life. We are the opinion that such generalizedallegation made against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaintdoes not disclose ingredients of offence under Section 498A of theIPC which pertains to a woman being subjected to cruelty by herhusband or relative. There is no doubt about the fact that theexplanation to Section 498A of the IPC elaborately defines crueltyto mean and include any willful conduct which is of such a natureas is likely to cause grievous injury whether mental or physical to awoman. But the aforesaid general allegation levelled against thepetitioner in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 does notdisclose the ingredients of the aforesaid offence under Section498A of the IPC insofar as the petitioner is concerned.26.A perusal of even the written complaint dated 13.08.2020allegedly submitted by respondent No. 2 before the police does notshow any specific allegations against the petitioner. We are referringto the said written complaint because learned counsel appearing forrespondent No.2 specifically relied upon the same. In fact the saidwritten complaint runs into a number of pages wherein respondentNo.2 has sought to state the situations she faced after marriage withAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 18 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtthe petitioner’s brother but in such a detailed complaint there is nospecific allegation against the petitioner. In fact the allegationabout the petitioner having allegedly kept an eye on respondentNo.2 preventing her from meeting her relatives is conspicuous byits absence. Such an allegation being made against the petitioner inthe oral complaint leading to registration of the FIR dated31.08.2020 comes through as an afterthought. Therefore theemphasis placed on the said written complaint dated 13.08.2020 by learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not take the case ofthe said respondent any further. In this context learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner is justified in relying upon thejudgment of this Court in the case of Anand KalwaniSupp. 1 SCC 335AJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 19 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtwherein such power could be exercised either to preventabuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to securethe ends of justice though it may not be possible to laydown any precise clearly defined and sufficientlychannelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulaeand to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of caseswherein such power should be exercised.1. Where the allegations made in the FirstInformation Report or the complaint even if theyare taken at their face value and accepted in theirentirety do not prima facie constitute any offenceor make out a case against the accused.2. Where the allegations in the First InformationReport and other materials if any accompanyingthe F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying an investigation by police officers underSection 156(1) of the Code except under an orderof a Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code.3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in theFIR or complaint and the evidence collected insupport of the same do not disclose the commissionof any offence and make out a case against theaccused.4.Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do notconstitute a cognizable offence but constitute onlya non cognizable offence no investigation ispermitted by a police officer without an order of aMagistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.5. Where the allegations made in the FIR orAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 20 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtcomplaint are so absurd and inherently improbableon the basis of which no prudent person can everreach a just conclusion that there is sufficientground for proceeding against the accused.6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in anyof the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) tothe institution and continuance of the proceedingsand or where there is a specific provision in theCode or the concerned Act providing efficaciousredress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwith mala fide and or where the proceeding ismaliciously instituted with an ulterior motive forwreaking vengeance on the accused and with a viewto spite him due to private and personal grudge.”28.In the present case we are of the opinion that the case of thepetitioner clearly falls in Categories 1 and 2 as laid down in theabove quoted portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court.Therefore power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 226of the Constitution of India deserves to be exercised in favour ofthe petitioner. We are of the opinion that when the allegationsmade in the complaint leading to registration of the FIR do noteven prima facie show the ingredients of the alleged offencesagainst the petitioner the petition deserves to be allowed.29.In view of the above the writ petition is allowed in terms ofAJN on 01 04 2021 on 01 04 21 21 08 Cri WP 146.21J.odtprayer clausewhich reads as follows:“(a)that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for therecords and proceedings in the said FIR bearingno.C.R.306 2020 dated 31 8 2020and issue an appropriate Writ order ordirection to quash and set aside the said FIR bearingno. C.R. 306 2020 registered with the WorliPolice Station Mumbai under section 498 A 344 406 504 506 and 34 of the IPC qua the Petitionerand all further proceedings arising therefrom.” 30.As is clear from the above quoted prayer clause in terms ofwhich the present writ petition stands allowed the said FIR standsquashed only in respect of the petitioner before this court. We makeit clear that observations made hereinabove are strictly confined tothe present petition and will have no bearing on any proceedings inrespect of other accused.31.Rule is made absolute in above terms. The writ petition isdisposed accordingly. (S.S. SHINDE J.)AJN 

Summary: A fair reading of the FIR will demonstrate that, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, the charges are ambiguous, non-specific, and fail to reveal any of the elements of the above offences. The charges in the complaint that resulted in the filing of the FIR do not even reveal the ingredients of the suspected offences against the petitioner. This honourable judgement was passed In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay case of Naval Ashok Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr [CWP NO.146 OF 2021] by The Hon’ble S.S. SHINDE &amp; MANISH PITALE. On or about 18.03.2020, respondent no.2 and her husband went to Mahabaleshwar to stay in respondent father’s bungalow wherein they had to stay for 4 months in lockdown because of covid-19. The mother of the petitioner informed him that the son of respondent No.2 had informed his father i.e., the petitioner’s brother about an alleged incident of sexual abuse by his grandfather. This led to a quarrel between both of the families, there were also attempts to settle the discord amicably, but eventually, that didn’t work out. The petitioner’s brother sent complaints to various police stations as also the Child Welfare Committee for registration of offences against the father of respondent No.2 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). Unfortunately, registration got delayed and the petitioner’s brother a filed writ petition in this court. On 31.08.2020 respondent No.2 caused an FIR to be registered at the Police Station Worli, Mumbai, against her husband i.e., petitioner’s brother, the petitioner himself and his mother under sections 498A, 344, 406, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The petitioner has prayed that this court ought to invoke its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) to quash the FIR. The court observed “such generalized allegation made against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint does not disclose ingredients of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which pertains to a woman being subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative. There is no doubt about the fact that the explanation to Section 498A of the IPC elaborately defines cruelty to mean and include any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to cause grievous injury whether mental or physical to a woman. But the aforesaid general allegation levelled against the petitioner in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 does not disclose the ingredients of the aforesaid offence under Section 498A of the IPC, insofar as the petitioner is concerned”. The court disposed of the case stating that, In the present case, “We are of the opinion that when the allegations made in the complaint leading to registration of the FIR do not even prima facie show the ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner, the petition deserves to be allowed.”