Bombay HC Denies Quashing FIR in Disturbing Domestic Abuse Case

By Legal Wires 4 Minutes Read

On July 22, the Bombay High Court ruled against quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against Hardik Shah and his family members. The complaint was lodged by Shah’s estranged wife, who alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, his father, and his three married sisters.

The Bench comprising of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, found the accusations serious and noted that specific roles had been attributed to each of the accused both independently and collectively. The complainant claimed that she was forced to clean the house and show it on WhatsApp video calls to her in-laws, among other mistreatments, leading the court to describe this as a “sadist manner of ill-treatment.”

Key Allegations:

• Interference in Household Work: The three sisters-in-law allegedly interfered in the household work from their respective homes. They reportedly removed the house help and compelled the complainant to perform all household chores.

• WhatsApp Video Calls: The complainant alleged that she was forced to demonstrate her cleaning efforts via WhatsApp video calls to her in-laws, who criticized her work.

• Quarrels and Abuse: The sisters-in-law and the husband frequently picked quarrels with the complainant over minor issues. The husband often supported his sisters and verbally abused the complainant.

• Dowry Demands and ‘Streedhan’: The complainant accused the family of demanding dowry. Even after allegedly driving her out of the matrimonial home, they refused to return her ‘Streedhan’, including valuable jewellery and other personal items.

• WhatsApp Group for Berating: A WhatsApp group was allegedly created by the petitioners to highlight the complainant’s perceived faults to her husband, further leading to quarrels.

• Character Assassination: The husband allegedly questioned the complainant’s character and refused to have conjugal relations, citing his diabetes.

• Incident on October 11: The complaint stated that on October 11, the sisters-in-law visited the couple’s home, verbally abused her over cleaning issues, and demanded gifts from her family. They allegedly drove her out of the house without returning her valuable belongings.

Court’s Observations and Decision

• The court noted that the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of the alleged offences and therefore refused to quash it.
• The judges emphasized that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial when hearing pleas under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The court dismissed the petition, noting that the allegations and the circumstances required proper examination at the trial stage.

Hardik Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires