Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1609 (BOM)

Sumer Singh v. State of Maharashtra

2025-12-16

BHARATI DANGRE, SHYAM C.CHANDAK

body2025
ORDER : (PER SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 1) Present Petition pose a challenge to quash and set aside FIR No.76 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara police station and the proceedings arising therefrom being C.C.No.737/PW/2022 and pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The said FIR was filed by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C. 2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms.Kak, learned A.P.P. waives service on behalf of Respondent No.1-State and Mr.Netto, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2. By consent, of the parties taken up for final hearing. 4) Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner No.2 is mother- in-law of Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 got married with Respondent No.2 on 19/02/2007. After the marriage, the couple moved to reside at Mumbai in a flat owned by the company of Respondent No.2. In 2010, the couple had purchased flat at Jogeshwari, Mumbai. In December 2010, the couple was blessed with a girl child. In 2016, Petitioner No.1 purchased Flat No.802, Renaissance Cooperative Housing Society, Andheri (West), Mumbai and Respondent No.2 had contributed Rs.42,00,000/- for the same. In 2017, Petitioner No.1 compelled Respondent No.2 to sell the flat at Aashiyana Tower, Jogeshwari, Mumbai. However, after selling the said flat she refused to give sale proceeds of Rs.89 lakhs to Petitioner No.1. The couple were residing in the flat at Andheri from 2017 to 2018. 5) It is alleged that in the year 2008, Respondent No.2 had purchased a flat at Hari Nagar, Delhi for total consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. In the year 2012, she had purchased another flat at Subhash Nagar, New Delhi for total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. Both the flats were purchased in the name of Respondent No.2-Manpreet Kaur. However, Petitioner No.1 had office in the flat at Subhash Nagar, Delhi and was conducting his business from said flat. However, Petitioner No. 1 had prepared forged documents in his own name in respect of the tenement situated at Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. 6) It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.80,00,000/- from India bulls Company for conducting various companies, however, out of the said loan amount Petitioner No.1 is repaying housing loan for flat purchased at Renaissance Building, Andheri, Mumbai. 6) It is alleged that Petitioner No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.80,00,000/- from India bulls Company for conducting various companies, however, out of the said loan amount Petitioner No.1 is repaying housing loan for flat purchased at Renaissance Building, Andheri, Mumbai. The financial transactions were entered into by Petitioner No.1 under the signature of Respondent No.2. 7) It is alleged that on 19/03/2020 Petitioner No.1 demanded the original documents of the tenement at Subhash Nagar, Delhi but Respondent No.2 refused to provide the said documents. Therefore, Petitioner No.1 assaulted Respondent No.2. Consequently, Respondent No.2 filed the complaint with Hari Nagar police station, Delhi. It is alleged that on several occasions, Petitioner No. 1 used to assault Respondent No. 2 on account of her refusal to fulfil his monetary demands for various reasons. Consequently, she filed six to seven complaints with the Rajouri Garden Police Station, Delhi. 8) Petitioner No.2-mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 had filed a case under the Negotiable Instrument Act in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, West Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 filed the Custody Petition in respect of their daughter before the Family Court at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi bearing CC No.GP/26/2020 and also filed Divorce Petition bearing C.C. No.1062 of 2020 before the Family Court, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 filed the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, being CC. No.103/DV/2020, before the Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. Thus, the Petitioners subjected Respondent No.2 to cruelty by physically assaulting her on account of her failure to fulfil their monetary demands and Petitioner No.1 also cheated her by unlawfully taking possession of her tenement situated in Delhi. 9) On completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet being CC/No.737/PW/2022. 10) Respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s Shanaya Enterprises, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 had, from time to time, arranged loan amounts for the said business. The Petitioners transferred a total sum of Rs.89,75,000/- into the bank account of Respondent No.2. Out of the said amount, Respondent No. 2 repaid a part of the money; however, despite repeated requests, she failed to return the remaining amount. Eventually, Respondent No.2 issued a cheque for Rs.80,00,000/-, which was dishonoured upon presentation. Consequently, Petitioner No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 07/01/2021. Out of the said amount, Respondent No. 2 repaid a part of the money; however, despite repeated requests, she failed to return the remaining amount. Eventually, Respondent No.2 issued a cheque for Rs.80,00,000/-, which was dishonoured upon presentation. Consequently, Petitioner No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 07/01/2021. It is further submitted that only after receiving summons in the said proceedings, Respondent No. 2 filed the present complaint alleging offences under Section 498-A and other provisions. He submitted that apart from vague allegations, there is no material in the entire charge-sheet to constitute the alleged offences. The allegations that Respondent No.2 paid Rs.42,00,000/- to the Petitioners are stated to be false and are not supported by any documentary evidence. It is therefore submitted that the present case has been filed out of vengeance and arises out personal and financial dispute between the parties. Accordingly, it is prayed that the subject FIR be quashed and set aside. 11) In contrast, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the subject FIR coupled with the statements of the witnesses, clearly indicates that on several occasions the Petitioners subjected Respondent No.2 to cruelty on account of her failure to fulfill their monetary demands. It was submitted that Petitioner No. 1 used to physically assault Respondent No. 2, as a result of which she lodged complaints against him. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the Petitioners and that the question as to whether the Petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences is matter to be decided at trial. It was contended that the disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR. Accordingly, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12) Mr. Netto, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 had adopted the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and submitted that the Petition may be dismissed. 13) We have considered rival submissions and perused the record. On careful analysis of the FIR and statement of witnesses it is revealed that till November 2020, there was no cruelty to Respondent No.2 from the Petitioners. Netto, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 had adopted the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and submitted that the Petition may be dismissed. 13) We have considered rival submissions and perused the record. On careful analysis of the FIR and statement of witnesses it is revealed that till November 2020, there was no cruelty to Respondent No.2 from the Petitioners. 14) For the first time Respondent No.2 filed complaint against Petitioner No.1 in March 2020, with Hari Nagar police station, Delhi alleging that Petitioner No.1 physically assaulted her when she demanded documents of her flat at Subhash Nagar, Delhi. But the said incident is followed by a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by Petitioner No.2 in January 2021. Prior to that in August 2020, Petitioner filed Guardianship Petition before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi against Respondent No.2. In September 2020, Respondent No.2 filed Domestic Violence Petitioner against Petitioner No.1 before Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. 15) From the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that there had been financial disputes between the parties and therefore, they had filed cases against each other. It is only thereafter Respondent No.2 thought fit to file complaint dated 18/02/2021 alleging offence of cruelty under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 323, 504 and 34 of I.P.C. 16) As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision between Digambar and Another vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 INSC 1019 mere cruelty is not enough to constitute the offence of Section 498A of I.P.C. as it must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3682 vague allegations of cruelty were levelled in the F.I.R. by the complainant therein (wife) and the relatives of the husband (including the parents-in- law) were dragged into the crime without any reason. The F.I.R. lacked precise allegations and, it was lodged after the legal notice for Divorce was sent by the said complainant and it was therefore concluded that the F.I.R. came to be lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle score with the husband and his relatives. The F.I.R. lacked precise allegations and, it was lodged after the legal notice for Divorce was sent by the said complainant and it was therefore concluded that the F.I.R. came to be lodged as a retaliatory measure intended to settle score with the husband and his relatives. 17) In the case of Digambar and Another [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana [supra], therein in paragraph 25 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.…” 18) Thus, it is apparent that the said FIR is nothing but result of financial disputes between the parties and it is filed out of vengeance etc. Therefore, the prosecution of the proceedings in the said case would be nothing but clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the subject FIR. Hence, the following order :- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR No.76 of 2021 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai and proceedings in C.C. No.737/PW/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai against the Petitioners is quashed and set aside.