Try out our : Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience.
17-WP-6108-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6108 OF 2021
Abhishek Chatterjee s/o. Shri Rupak
Chatterjee and others … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents
………
Mr. Nitish Banka instructed by Mr. Manish Varma for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State.
………
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 3 AUGUST 2022
P.C. :-
By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking to quash the
FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 498A read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner No.1 is the
husband, Petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law and Petitioner No.3 is
sister-in-law of the Respondent No.2.
2. It was put to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as to
whether the Petitioners are willing to explore possibility of amicable
resolution of the dispute with the Respondent No.2. First the learned
Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions of the Petitioner No.1
Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 3
17-WP-6108-2021.odt
submitted that he is not ready and thereafter, after the matter was
argued further stated the Petitioners are ready. When we were
dictating the order to issue notice to the Respondent No.2 on that
count, again Petitioner No.1 changed his stand and he is not ready for
settlement and urged that the matter be heard on merits. Secondly, it
was put to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the roles of the
Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 may be different and it would be prudent to
file separate Petitions. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners took a
stand that it is not necessary to do so, as the ingredients of Section
498A are not present against any of the Petitioners and insisted that
the Petition as it is should be heard. Thereafter we proceeded to hear
the matter on merits.
3. In the FIR, the Respondent No.2 has stated that from the
beginning the Respondent No.2 was harassed on the ground of not
paying sufficient amount in the marriage. Respondent No.2 has
stated that her father had provided loan/funds for taking the house on
rent and till date the said amount is not returned to the father of
Respondent No.2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that
the primary allegation in the FIR is regarding the extra marital affair
and not regarding Section 498A. However, the allegations in the FIR
regarding harassment on the ground of not spending sufficient
amount of money during the wedding and non return of Respondent
No.2’s father’s investments for purchase of house on rent and the
Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 3
17-WP-6108-2021.odt
consequent harassment would show the ingredients of Section 498A.
Therefore, the arguments that the ingredients are not present at all in
the entire FIR is not correct. Further, an FIR is not an encyclopedia.
Whatever be the defence of the Petitioners the same would now be
considered at the time of the trial.
4. The Writ Petition is rejected.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )
Digitally signed
KANCHAN by KANCHAN
PRASHANT
PRASHANT DHURI
DHURI Date: 2022.08.06
13:55:32 +0530
Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 3
