Mumbai: The Bombay High Court quashed a case against the relatives – maternal uncles and their wives – of a man unable to develop physical relations with his wife, saying the relatives could not have had the knowledge of man’s condition as such condition normally is known to the person himself and this information does not travel beyond the home. It, however, refused to quash case against husband and his three other family members.
The complainant wife had lodged a complaint against her husband, in-laws and relatives with allegations of physical torture, harassment, demand for dowry and the husband being unable to develop physical relations and alleged relatives of her husband got him married to her despite knowing his deficiency by which he is unable to make physical relations with a woman.
Whether circumstances would really indicate that relatives had knowledge of deficiency, High Court considered
A bench comprising Ravindra V Ghuge and Rajesh S Patil, in view of the allegations of alleged physical torture, harassment, demand for dowry and the husband being unable to develop physical relations, considered whether the circumstances set out in the First Information Report (FIR) would really indicate that the relatives of the man had the knowledge of the deficiency by which man is unable to cohabit.
Sometimes, nearest relatives are also unable to know or notice: High Court
The bench said that it is not the case of the complainant wife that she was compelled and coerced by husband’s relatives to get married to the man and noted the contention that that relatives were keen that the marriage be solemnized between them.
“We are of the view that whether the husband was unable to develop physical relations and whether he has a deficiency by which he is unable to cohabit, is a condition which normally is known to the person himself. This information does not travel beyond the home. Sometimes, nearest relatives are also unable to know or notice. It is not the case of the complainant that she was compelled and coerced by Applicant Nos.5 to 8 (relatives) to get married to Applicant No.1 (husband). The contention is that they were keen that the marriage be solemnized between them,” the bench said.
“Taking into account the above factors, we find this application needs to be entertained to the extent of applicant nos. 5 to 8. As such, the criminal application is partly allowed and FIR stands quashed to the extent of applicant nos.5 to 8,” the bench added.
Case against husband and other family members were grave: High Court
The High Court, however, said that the case against her husband and other family members were grave and there were serious allegations against them and the offence registered was triable and if proved, it was punishable. It further said that it is not expected to assess whether any offence can be proved in the trial and whether there are any chances of the accused getting an acquittal. If an offence is made out in the allegations in the FIR, all other attending circumstances can be considered by the trial court and if it finds that an offence made out against a particular accused would require a trial, it is not expected to exercise its jurisdiction, it added.
“Insofar as applicant nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, there are grave and serious allegations against these four persons. The offence registered is triable and if proved, is punishable in the light of section 498-A, 417, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,” the bench said while refusing to quash case against husband and his family members.
