No HC relief for man booked for unnatural sex with wife
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC), while rejecting a petition seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) filed by a woman against her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law, has held that when serious allegations are levelled against the accused in a matrimonial dispute, the court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The complaint states that the husband indulged in forced unnatural sex with her and she was told that her husband’s behaviour would change for the better only if she complied with their dowry demand.
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution allows the high court to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, over ruling orders, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them. Advocate Aniket Vagal for the petitioners submitted that it was a fit case for the court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR.
A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Manish Pitale, while hearing the petition of the 33-year-old husband, his 29-year-old brother and 60-yearold mother was informed that they sought quashing of the FIR filed against them at the Vile Parle police station on November 29, 2019. The three had been booked for offences punishable under sections of the IPC.
According to the complaint lodged by the woman, she had met her husband through a matrimonial website in 2016. Both the families agreed and the two were engaged. The man established forcible physical relations with the woman and then left for his service on a cruise. After returning, the two were married in April 2017. The complaint states that after marriage the three accused started ill-treating her and demanded that she arrange for dowry from her parents.
However, advocate Jayshree
Tripathi for the woman drew the attention of the court to the seriousness of the allegations made by the woman against the three and suggested that the court should not quash the FIR.
The court observed, “Considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the fact that prima facie the ingredients of the said offences can be found in the said complaint lodged by woman, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for exercise of jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”