3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.

IN 1/15

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2019

1) Kamlesh Ghanshyam Lohia, ]
aged 41 years. ]
2) Smt. Shweta Kamlesh Lohia, ]
aged 38 years. ]
(Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 abovenamed  ]
residing at 101, Mala Apts., Dadabhai ]
Road No.1, ]
Vile Parle (West),  ]
Mumbai – 400 056. ]
]
3) Smt. Premlata Manoj Agarwal ]
aged 44 years. ]
4) Manoj Balkishan Agarwal, ]
aged 43 years. ]
(Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 abovenamed  ]
residing at C­1603, Oberio              ]
Gardens, Thakur Village,               ]
Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 ].. Petitioners

Versus 
1) The State of Maharashtra (Through  ]
the Commissioner of Police, Office of  ]
the Commissioner of Police,  ]
Crawford Market, Mumbai­400 001. ]
2) Smt. Priyanka Krishna Lohia, ]
Age : 35 years, Occ : Housewife, ]
C/o. Madan Rupchand Gupta, ]
Bungalow No. % 58, Park Land  ]
Society, Near Bajaj Finserv, ]
Vimannagar, Pune – 411 014 ]

3) The Senior Inspector of Police,         ]
Juhu Mumbai­C.R. No. 509/2018. ].. Respondents

Mr.Subhash Jha a/w. Ms.Sanjana Pardeshi i/b Law Global for petitioners.

Ms.Sangita Shinde, APP for State.

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 2/15

Mr.Satyavrat Joshi, respondent No.2.

CORAM        :  RANJIT MORE &
                          N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
Reserved for Judgment on : 14TH  AUGUST 2019
Judgment Pronounced on  : 23RD  AUGUST 2019

JUDGMENT  (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the

counsels of the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1963 the petitioners,

the relatives of the husband of the married woman­respondent No.2 have

prayed for, inter­alia, quashing the prosecution initiated on the strength of

the   first   information   report   No.509   of   2018   registered   at   Juhu   Police

Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 498­A, 354,

377, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 

3. Initially,   the   petition   was   filed   by   the   four   petitioners.   The

petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn qua the petitioner No.4­Shri

Manoj Agrawal. The petition, thus, proceeded with in respect of petitioner

Nos.1 to 3. 

4. The substance to the petition can be stated in brief as under :­

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 3/15

a)  The   marriage   of   Priyanka­respondent   No.2

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   'the   first   informant’)   was

solemnized with Krishna Lohiya on 11th  December 2001.

The   petitioner   No.1   Kamlesh   is   the   brother   of   Krishna.

The petitioner No.2­Smt. Shweta is the wife of Kamlesh.

The petitioner No.3­Smt. Premlata is the sister of Krishna.

Shri   Manoj  Agrawal,  who   withdrew   the  petition,   is  the

husband of Smt. Premlata. 

b) The petitioners assert that since inception of the

marital life between the first informant and Krishna, there

was matrimonial discord. The first informant used to rake

up   quarrels   with   Krishna.   The   widowed   mother   and

widowed sister of Krishna were staying with Krishna and

the first informant. The first informant made the lives of

her   husband   and   widowed   mother­in­law   and   sister­in­

law   miserable   by   her   quarrelsome   conduct.   There   was

certain   financial   transaction   between   Krishna   and   the

father of the first informant, which also contributed to the

disputes between the first informant and Krishna.

c) As   the   marital   discord   between   the   first

informant and Krisha escalated resulting in institution of

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 4/15

multiple   proceedings,   the   first   informant   informant   has

lodged   the   FIR   on   25th  October   2018   with   Juhu   Police

Station   making   absolutely   false,   baseless   and   vague

allegations.

d)   The   petitioners   aver   that   the   first   informant   and

Krishna were residing separately since  beginning of  the

marital life. The petitioners have been residing separately

and never shared the household with the first informant.

The petitioners used to occasionally visit the matrimonial

home of the first informant, mostly during festivals. There

was no cause  or  occasion for the  petitioners to ill­treat

and harass the first informant. The petitioners have been

falsely implicated by the first informant with an oblique

and ulterior motive. The continuation of the prosecution

on   the   basis   of   such   patently   false,  vague   and   baseless

allegations amounts to abuse of the process. Hence, this

petition   to   quash   the   proceedings   arising   out   of   C.R.

No.509­2018 qua the petitioners.

5. We   have   heard   Shri   Subhash   Jha,   the   learned   counsel   for   the

petitioner,   Shri   Satyavrat   Joshi,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent

No.2­the first informant and Ms. Sangita Shinde, the learned APP for the

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5/15

State, at some length. 

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that the

instant prosecution of the petitioners is yet another manifestation of a clear

abuse   of   the   provisions   contained   in   section   498­A   of   the   Indian   Penal

Code, 1860 ('IPC'). Drawing our attention to the genesis of the prosecution,

which   is   essentially   rooted   in   the   marital   discord   between   the   first

informant   and   Krishna,   the   learned   counsel   would   urge   that   the

petitioners,   who   are   the   relatives   of   Krishna,   are   roped   in   to   wreak

vengeance and subject them to persecution, under the guise of outwardly

legitimate prosecution.

7. Shri Jha took us through the allegations in the FIR and urged,

with a degree of vehemence, that even if the allegations in the FIR are

taken as a gospel truth, no offence can be said to have been made out as

against the petitioners so as to warrant their prosecution. Having regard to

the   fact  that  the  marriage  between  the  first informant  and Krishna  was

solemnized in the year 2009 and the first informant and Krishna have been

residing   separately   since   June   2010,   coupled   with   indisputable   position

that the petitioners have not shared the household with the first informant

since   then,   the   various   imaginary   and   bald   allegations   as   against   the

petitioners do not justify their continued prosecution, urged Shri Jha.

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 6/15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

8. In contrast to this, Shri Satyavrat Joshi, the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 stoutly submitted that there are specific allegations in

the   FIR,   which   implicate   the   petitioners.   An   endeavour   was   made   to

demonstrate   that   the   tenor   of   the   FIR   as   a   whole   is   required   to   be

considered   and,   if   so   construed,   according   to   the   learned   counsel   for

respondent No.2, the complicity of the the petitioners also can be said to be

prima­facie made out. In any event, the instant case cannot be said to be a

fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution   and   section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1963,

submitted Shri Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

9. We   have   given   a   careful   consideration   to   the   submissions

canvassed across the bar. We have minutely perused the material on record

especially the FIR dated 25 th October 2018. Before we advert to deal with

the rival submissions, we deem it appropriate to note the broad features of

the FIR, and the allegations which have a bearing upon the complicity of

the petitioners.

10. (A)  The   first   informant   has   alleged   that   her   parents   had

incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs.7 crores for her marriage. When she

joined   her   matrimonial   home,   Smt.   Sulochana,   the   mother­in­law,   Smt.

Pramila, sister­in­law, Kamlesh, brother­in­law (petitioner No.1) and Smt.

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 7/15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Shweta (co­sister)­petitioner No.2, were residing therein. 

  (B) The first informant and Krishna went to honeymoon for about

a month and expenses of about Rs.15 lakhs therefor were borne by her

father.   Krishna   had   taken   a   sum   of   Rs.75   lakhs   from   her   father   for

construction/renovation of the flat at Juhu, Mumbai. Krishna demanded

and accepted a further sum of Rs. 35 lakhs on the pretext that the amount

of Rs.75 lakhs was expended for a different purpose. The first informant

supervised   the   work   of   renovation   of   the   flat   and   thereafter   the   first

informant   and   Krishna   shifted   to   the   said   flat   at   Juhu   in   the   month   of

June/July 2010.

  (C) The   first   informant   has   alleged   that   the   relatives   of

Krishna   including   the   petitioners   used   to   occasionally   visit   her   house.

During those  visits, they insulted her by calling her 'fat and dark'. They

used to pass taunts also. The petitioner No.3­Premlata and her husband­

Manoj used to stay overnight once a week.

  (D) It   is   further   alleged   that   in   the   year   2012,   the   first

informant's   mother­in­law­Sulochana   and   sister­in­law­Pramila   shifted   to

the first informant's house at Juhu. The accused were demanding clothes,

ornaments and money on each of the festive occasions. The father of the

first   informant   met   all   the   demands.   The   mother­in­law   caused   mental

harassment by raking up quarrels on trifling issues. Pramila also abused the

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 8/15

first   informant   and   humiliated   her   by   calling   her,   'infertile'.   These

allegations were followed by a general allegation that the mother­in­law,

two   sisters­in­law,   brother­in­law,   co­sister   and   the   husband   of   the

petitioner   No.3   and   Smt.   Premlata   were   all   calling   the   first   informant,

'infertile' and made her to demand money from her parents. 

  (E) The   FIR   contains   specific   allegations   against   the

husband­Krishna   of   not   maintaining   physical   relations   with   the   first

informant, subjecting her to unnatural sexual relations against her will, and

making her to undergo painful IVF and IUI treatment on multiple occasions

forcibly. In addition, there are allegations of removal of ornaments from

the locker by Krishna. As against Manoj, there are certain allegations in the

first information report. Since, Manoj has withdrawn the petition, we do

not find it appropriate to advert to those allegations.

11. From   the  perusal  of  the   FIR,  the   gist   of   which   we   have  noted

above, it becomes abundantly clear that the first informant had stayed in

the matrimonial home at Ville Parle, Mumbai for few days after marriage.

The first informant and Krishna  shifted to Juhu in  June­July 2010. The

mother­in­law­Sulochana   and   sister­in­law­Pramila   allegedly   joined   the

first informant and Krishna in the year 2012. Evidently, the petitioner No.1

Kamlesh and the petitioner No.2­Smt. Shweta shared the house with the

first informant for few days, i.e., the interval between the date of marriage

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 9/15

and   shifting   of   first   informant   and   Krishna   to   Juhu   in   June   2010.

Concededly, Smt. Premlata, the petitioner No.3 did not reside with either

Kamlesh or  Krishna  at any  point of time  since  the  marriage  of the  first

informant   and   Krishna.   This   leads   to   a   legitimate   inference   that   the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were residing independently from the first informant

and Krishna during the latter's entire marital co­habitation of about nine

years.

12. The allegations against the petitioners are, therefore, required to

be appraised through the aforesaid backdrop. If we take the allegations in

the FIR at par, qua the petitioners, at best, the following three allegations

can be attributed to the petitioners :

(i)  After   the   first   informant   and   Krishna   shifted   to

Juhu in June 2012, the petitioners occasionally visited them

and during those visits, insulted the first informant by calling

her fat and dark complexioned.

(ii)  On every festive occasion, the family members of

Krishna demanded clothes, ornaments and money from her

parents and those demands were met.

(iii) All   the   family   members   humiliated   the   first

informant by calling her, “infertile” and made her to demand

money from her parents.

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 10/15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

13. Whether   the   aforesaid   allegations,   even   if   taken   at   par,   would

warrant   the   prosecution   of   the   petitioners   is   the   moot   question.   It   is

indisputable that the cruelty under section 498­A of IPC has a specific legal

connotation. Ordinary quarrels, differences of views and wear and tear of

life, which every home witnesses, do not fall within the mischief of cruelty

which   section   498­A   of   IPC   punishes.   Nor,   every   ill­treatment   or

harassment falls within its dragnet. To fall within the tentacles of section

498­A,   the   married   woman   must   have   been   subjected   to   cruelty   which

would   drive   the   woman   to   commit   suicide   or   to   cause   grave   injury   or

danger   to her  life, limb or  health,  or  with a   view to  coerce  her  or   any

person   related   to   her   to   meet   an   unlawful   demand   of   property.   Mere

demand of money or property, unaccompanied by any harassment, would

also not fall within the mischief of section 498­A. There has to be a nexus

between the demand and the consequent harassment.

14. On   the   anvil   of   the   aforesaid   legal   position,   if   the   allegations

enumerated above, are weighed, it becomes evident that the first allegation

of insulting the first informant after she shifted to Juhu in the year 2010, is

of   general   nature.   The   allegation   is   stale   as   well.   By   no   stretch   of

imagination, it can be stated that the alleged conduct had the propensity to

drive the first informant to commit suicide or cause harm to herself. 

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 11/15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

15. The   second   allegation   of   all   the   family   members   of   Krishna

demanding money, clothes and ornaments on each of the festive occasions

is also of general nature and bereft of any specific instance and authorship.

The   said   allegations,   at   the   highest,   would   indicate   that   on   festive

occasions certain articles were demanded. In the absence of the allegation

that the first informant was subjected to harassment either in order to meet

the unlawful demands of property or on her failure to meet such demands,

the second allegation looses the incriminating tendency.  

16. The third allegation of the first informant having been humiliated

by all the family members by calling her “infertile”, is omnibus in nature.

At   this   juncture,   the   fact   that   the   petitioners   have   been   residing

independently   of   the   first   informant   and   Krishna   assumes   critical

significance.   The   said   factor,  prima­facie,  erodes   the   credibility   of   the

general allegations in the absence of the specific reference to person, time

and place.

17. In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   fact­situation,   the   crucial   question

which   wrenches   to   the   fore   is   whether   the   resort   to   the   extraordinary

power under section 482 of the Code would be justifiable?  Indubitably, the

inherent   powers   of   the   Court   are   preserved   with   the   avowed   object   of

preventing the abuse of the judicial process and securing ends of justice. In

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 12/15

a   given   case,   the   continuation   of   the   prosecution,   which   is,   ex­facie,

actuated by a design to harass the accused and bring them to terms, would

amount to abuse of the judicial process and, in that eventuality, the ends of

justice   would   be   secured   by   quashing   such   prosecution.   Undoubtedly,

inherent power is of wide amplitude. But, the plenary nature of the power

warrants its resort sparingly and in deserving cases only. 

18. The width and contours of the power of the High Court under

section   482   of   the   Code   was   expounded   by   a   three­Judge   Bench   of   the

Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V. L. Muniswamy 1 as under :

“7.............In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High
Court   is   entitled   to   quash   a   proceeding   if   it   comes   to   the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the Court or that the; ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of
the   High   Court's   inherent   powers,   both   in   civil   and   criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which
is   that   a   court   proceeding   ought   not   to   be   permitted   to
degenerate   into   weapon   of   harassment   or   persecution.   In   a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the
very   nature   of   the   material   on   which   the   structure   of   the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of
justice are higher than the, ends of mere law though justice has
got   to   be   administered   according   to   laws   made   by   the,
legislature.   The   compelling   necessity   for   making   these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to. save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its.
subjects,   it   would   be   impossible   to   appreciate   the   width   and
contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 

1 (1977) 2 SCC 699

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc 13/15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN

19. It is judicially recognized that in the wake of marital discord, the

allegations are made thick and fast. There is a tendency to rope  in as many

persons from the family of the husband as possible, irrespective of their

involvement   in   the   alleged   crime.   Allowing   the   prosecution   of   the

immediate relations of the first informant, when the prosecution case does

not   indicate   their   involvement   even   remotely,   would   amount   to   grave

injustice. In exercise of the powers of under section 482 of the Code, the

Court   would   be   justified   to   quash   any   proceedings   if   it's   continuance

amounts   to   abuse   of   the   process   and   its   quashment   serves   the   ends   of

justice.

20. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Priti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand 2,

wherein, the following observations were made :­

“32   It   is   a   matter   of   common   experience   that   most   of   these

complaints  under   section   498­A    IPC   are  filed   in   the  heat  of  the
moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come
across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona
fide   and   are   filed   with   oblique   motive.   At   the   same   time,   rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are
also a matter of serious concern. 
…..............

35 The   ultimate   object   of   justice   is   to   find   out   the   truth   and

punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
herculean   task   in   majority   of   these   complaints.  The   tendency   of
implicating   husband   and   all   his   immediate   relations   is   also   not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely

2 (2010) 7 SCC 667

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 14/15

careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic   realities   into   consideration   while   dealing   with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have
an  entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint
are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. In the backdrop of the exposition of the aforesaid position, we

are of the considered view that the implication of the petitioners herein for

the offences punishable under section 498­A of IPC is actuated by a design

to harass and humiliate the petitioners for the reason that they happen to

be  the   relations   of   Krishna.   The  continuation   of   the   prosecution,   in  the

circumstances,   would   be   an   abuse   of   process   of   law.   Compelling   the

petitioners to undergo the trial would cause grave injustice. We, therefore,

deem   it   appropriate   to   quash   the   FIR   bearing   No.509/2018   and   the

consequent proceedings qua the petitioners.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands allowed. 

  The   FIR   No.   No.509/2018   registered   with   Juhu   Police   Station,

Mumbai for the offences punishable  under sections 498­A, 354, 377, 406

read with 34 of the IPC  and the resultant proceedings stand quashed qua

the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 only.

  The   prosecution   arising   out   of   the   aforesaid   FIR,   may,   however,

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::

3-wp-3540-2019-21-8 J.doc WWW.LIVELAW.IN 15/15

proceed against the rest of the accused, in accordance with law.

23. Before parting, we must record that the aforesaid observations

have been made solely for the purpose of evaluating the justifiability of

continuation   of   the   prosecution   qua   the   petitioners   only.   We   have   not

considered the merits of the prosecution as against the rest of the accused,

even remotely. The Courts and the authorities under the Code shall not be

influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove while determining

any issue, which may arise in the proceedings and/or prosecution on the

strength   of   FIR   No.   509/2018   against   rest   of   the   accused.   Nor,   the

observations   shall   be   pressed   into   service   in   any   collateral   proceedings

between the parties. 

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]              [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Shraddha Talekar PS

::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2019 18:43:40 :::