Scribd
Upload
6 views3 pages

Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing

its a research paper

Uploaded by

Chinmayee Shukla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views3 pages

Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing

its a research paper

Uploaded by

Chinmayee Shukla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Drafting Pleading and Conveyancing (DPC) Assignment by Chinmayee Shukla-

L20BALB008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI


CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. [530]/ [2024]

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJ, S/o JAI SIDASWANI,


MALAD WEST,
MUMBAI-1199854 ……
Petitioner no. 1

And Others

Versus

DIVYA, D/o RAMESH THACKERAY,


VERSOVA WEST,
MUMBAI: 772638 ……
Respondent.

WRIT PETITION UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS

SEEKING QUASHING OF FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S FATHER


AND MOTHER UNDER SECTIONS 85 OF BNS (CRUELTY)

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner(s) above-named, most respectfully showeth:

In order to have the FIR No. [XXX] against them under Section 85 of the BNS Act quashed
for alleged cruelty towards the Respondent, Divya (Raj's wife), Raj (the Petitioner No. 1) and
his parents (Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3) filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The petitioners respectfully submit that the FIR should be quashed by using this Honorable
Court's inherent powers because it is the product of a personal grudge and unfounded
allegations from a tumultuous marriage.

Brief Facts of the Case:

After three years of marriage, Raj and Divya's union started to face serious difficulties,
mostly related to communication and interpersonal disputes. The Respondent has
demonstrated violent tendencies, such as when she injured the Petitioner (Raj) by throwing a
phone at him. Additionally, it was learned that the Respondent has been receiving treatment
for bipolar disorder.

However, the marriage has irreparably broken down as a result of the Respondent's actions,
particularly her violent outbursts and accusations that her in-laws are biased against her due
to her caste. These persistent problems led Raj to file for divorce. After discovering this, the
Respondent filed a police complaint, claiming that her in-laws were cruel. As a result, a
formal complaint was filed under Section 85 of the BNS Act against Raj, his mother, and
father.

Grounds for Quashing the FIR:

False Allegations and Malicious Prosecution: The FIR in question is founded on unfounded
and untrue accusations. The Respondent's claims of cruelty are unsupported by any evidence,
and they are largely the product of the Respondent's emotional and psychological problems.
The Respondent has never experienced cruelty from the Petitioners, and they have never
harmed her. In the wake of a failed marriage, the accusations seem to have been made
specifically to harass the petitioners.

No Mens rea or Act of Cruelty: According to Section 85 of the BNS Act, cruelty must be a
purposeful and intentional act committed by the accused that results in the victim suffering
physical or psychological harm. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent has not been
intentionally harmed in any way. Rather than anything the Petitioners did, the Respondent's
mental health problems and her erratic behavior were the main causes of the marital discord.

Absence of Prima Facie Case: The FIR and its supporting documentation do not establish a
prima facie case of cruelty against the petitioners under Section 85. It is well established that
when there is insufficient evidence to support the charge, the High Court may, in accordance
with its inherent authority under Section 482 CrPC, halt proceedings (State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335). There is no solid proof that the Respondent was cruelly
treated by the Petitioners.

Legal Precedents for Quashing FIR in Cruelty Cases:

Section 482 CrPC Inherent Powers: In the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 SCC 335
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that if the accusations made are baseless or untrue, the
High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss a FIR. When there is no case or when
the proceedings are blatantly unfair, the Court has the authority to stop them.

Additionally, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dismissed a FIR in Subhash Kapoor v. State
of Maharashtra, (2000) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 207, 2000, stating that ambiguous
accusations and only a family connection to the accused husband are insufficient grounds for
starting criminal proceedings.

Cruelty Claims Unsubstantiated: The Supreme Court ruled in R.K. Pradhan v. State of
Sikkim (2019) 11 SCC 243 that claims of cruelty must be supported by particular actions
rather than relying solely on broad assertions or speculation. In this instance, no specific act
of cruelty by the Petitioners is mentioned in the Respondent's complaint. According to the
BNS Act, the Respondent's mental illness and their tumultuous marriage do not amount to
criminal cruelty.

Examples of Mental Health Problems in Cruelty Cases: In Neeraj Khanna v. State of Delhi
(2017) 14 SCC 573, the High Court dismissed a formal complaint brought under Section
498A IPC, concluding that, absent undeniable proof of intentional harm, accusations resulting
from mental health problems and emotional distress do not qualify as criminal cruelty.
Likewise, in this instance, the Respondent was not harmed by the Petitioners, and her charges
seem to be related to her mental health.

Prayer:

In view of the above facts and legal submissions, the Petitioners humbly pray that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Quash the FIR No. [XXX] registered against the Petitioners under Section 85 of the BNS
Act.

b) Pass any other order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of
justice.

Place: MUMBAI Date: 17/11/2024.

Petitioner 1 (Raj) [Signature]

Petitioner 2 (Father of Raj) [Signature]

Petitioner 3 (Mother of Raj) [Signature]

Advocate for Petitioners:

VERIFICATION

We, Jai Sidaswani and Ekta Sidaswani (Petitioner No. 1 and 2 respectively), aged 62 and 60
years, R/o Malad West, Mumbai, do hereby verify that the contents of the above mentioned
paragraphs are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at: MUMBAI.

Date: 17/11/2024.

DEPONENTS

You might also like