MUMBAI: Bombay high court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a woman who was booked for allegedly assaulting her husband with a broom and biting his hand.
“The chargesheet does not make out offences against the petitioner… continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of process of law,” said Justices Prakash Naik and Nitin Borkar in the November 29 order.
The FIR was registered by Sion police station on April 25, 2022 for offences punishable under IPC sections including 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) on her husband’s complaint. When he asked why his papers, laptop and stationery were scattered, she allegedly abused and assaulted him with a broom and bit him on his right hand. He slapped her and went to lodge the complaint. On February 6, the police filed the charge sheet before the metropolitan magistrate, 51st court, Kurla. The wife (45) challenged it in HC.
Her petition said her husband expired on April 30, 2022 of a heart attack. He was suffering from a severe mental disorder she was unaware of when they married. She submitted medical records of his hospital stay to the police. Her petition said her husband “was tormenting her since their marriage in 1986 and till his demise.” She had “borne all his idiosyncrasies and his unpredictable moods.” Her mother-in-law had prevailed upon her not to end marital alliance with him as it would traumatise their two children. Two house helps told the police the husband had brutally assaulted her and not the other way around.
The wife’s advocates Sagar Shahani and Pranali Darekar argued that the prosecution is relying on the statement of a witness which does not support the husband’s complaint. The witness stated that the husband used to assault the petitioner. After perusing the charge sheet, the judges noted, “Apparently the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner was strained.” Also, a reading of the contents of the FIR “does not make out any offences against the petitioner.” They agreed with Shahani that “the requisite ingredients to constitute the offence under section 324 … are completely absent.”
The judges noted the injury certificate of the husband mentioned blunt trauma to his right hand. “The medical opinion sought by the police indicates that there is a possibility of injuries being self-inflicted. The complainant has expired. The statement of the witness does not support the version of the complainant,’’ they added. Considering these circumstances, the judges concluded “a case is made out for quashing the charge sheet.” They directed that the proceedings pending in the magistrate court “are quashed and set aside.”
“The chargesheet does not make out offences against the petitioner… continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of process of law,” said Justices Prakash Naik and Nitin Borkar in the November 29 order.
The FIR was registered by Sion police station on April 25, 2022 for offences punishable under IPC sections including 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) on her husband’s complaint. When he asked why his papers, laptop and stationery were scattered, she allegedly abused and assaulted him with a broom and bit him on his right hand. He slapped her and went to lodge the complaint. On February 6, the police filed the charge sheet before the metropolitan magistrate, 51st court, Kurla. The wife (45) challenged it in HC.
Her petition said her husband expired on April 30, 2022 of a heart attack. He was suffering from a severe mental disorder she was unaware of when they married. She submitted medical records of his hospital stay to the police. Her petition said her husband “was tormenting her since their marriage in 1986 and till his demise.” She had “borne all his idiosyncrasies and his unpredictable moods.” Her mother-in-law had prevailed upon her not to end marital alliance with him as it would traumatise their two children. Two house helps told the police the husband had brutally assaulted her and not the other way around.
The wife’s advocates Sagar Shahani and Pranali Darekar argued that the prosecution is relying on the statement of a witness which does not support the husband’s complaint. The witness stated that the husband used to assault the petitioner. After perusing the charge sheet, the judges noted, “Apparently the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner was strained.” Also, a reading of the contents of the FIR “does not make out any offences against the petitioner.” They agreed with Shahani that “the requisite ingredients to constitute the offence under section 324 … are completely absent.”
The judges noted the injury certificate of the husband mentioned blunt trauma to his right hand. “The medical opinion sought by the police indicates that there is a possibility of injuries being self-inflicted. The complainant has expired. The statement of the witness does not support the version of the complainant,’’ they added. Considering these circumstances, the judges concluded “a case is made out for quashing the charge sheet.” They directed that the proceedings pending in the magistrate court “are quashed and set aside.”
