File photo : Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court File photo – High court.(With Akhef’s story) Aurangabad,TOI,Photo by Snehil Sakhare
Justice Sushil M Ghodeswar, in an order passed last week, allowed the woman’s plea under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, challenging an FIR registered at Chakur police station in Latur district on June 4, 2020. The FIR had invoked sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation), read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The judge further noted that the allegations regarding dowry demand, assault and forced abortion were directed against the husband and in-laws, and that “no specific incident, date or overt act” had been attributed to the applicant to attract offences under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. “Even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the applicant,” the high court held.
Appearing for the applicant (Bengaluru woman), advocate Ganesh Gadhe argued that she was neither related to the husband nor his family and was residing in Bengaluru. He contended that the allegations against her were vague, unsupported by any specific overt act, and that none of the witness statements implicated her in any offence. Assistant public prosecutor M A Aher, and advocate H B Nandagawale represented the complainant and argued that the chargesheet contained sufficient material and that the Bengaluru woman’s role should be tested during trial.
HC relied on Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992), U Suvetha vs State (2009), and Dechamma I M @ Dechamma Koushik vs State of Karnataka (Dec 4, 2024). The apex court had held that a woman with whom a husband allegedly had an extra-marital relationship was not a ‘relative’ of the husband under Section 498-A. The applicant is neither related to the husband by blood nor by marriage, and therefore, she cannot be said to be a ‘relative’ of the husband so as to attract Section 498-A,” the court said.
After examining the FIR and witness statements, Justice Ghodeswar observed that the complaint was “lodged as a result of matrimonial differences” between the complainant and her husband. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Aurangabad bench of Bombay high court has quashed a criminal case against a Bengaluru-based woman who was arraigned in a matrimonial dispute solely on the allegation that she was in an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband. “The only allegation against the applicant is that she was in an illicit relationship with the husband.