High Court Quashes Vexatious Matrimonial Offshoots Filed With Malice to Wreak Vengeance and Secure Favourable Settlements

The litigation involves a husband (Prakash Bhatia), a wife (‘Y’), and a step-daughter (‘X’) embroiled in a bitter matrimonial and financial dispute following their marriage in 2014

Between 2020 and 2022, the parties filed a series of FIRs against each other: (i) FIR No. 767/2021 filed by the step-daughter ‘X’ against the wife ‘Y’ alleging sexual abuse under the POCSO Act (incident of June 2018)

FIR No. 434/2021 filed by wife ‘Y’ against the husband alleging he intentionally tried to spread COVID-19 to her

FIR No. 1149/2022 filed by wife ‘Y’ against the husband alleging rape and blackmail dating back to 2012

The record shows a history of disputes over property gift deeds, bank loans, and maintenance

The parties sought quashing of these FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending they were malicious and vexatious

1. Whether the allegations in the FIRs, particularly under the POCSO and IPC sections, constitute an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC

2. Whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act bar the High Court from quashing a proceeding where foundational facts appear improbable or malicious

3. Whether inordinate, unexplained delay and contradictory statements in matrimonial-linked criminal complaints justify the exercise of inherent powers to prevent manifest injustice

The Court primarily applied the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically Categories 5 and 7 regarding inherently improbable allegations and malicious prosecutions

It relied on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab to prevent the abuse of the process of court

Mohammad Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates a closer scrutiny of FIRs filed with ulterior motives for personal vengeance

Regarding POCSO, the court considered Sections 29 and 30 (presumption of culpable mental state) but applied the principle from Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, which allows quashing if foundational facts are not established and the allegations appear bogus

The Court observed that the three FIRs were "offshoots and incidental" to a disintegrated marriage and financial warfare

In the POCSO case (Appln. 427/2023), the Court noted that independent NGO workers who visited the home at the time of the alleged disclosure denied being informed of any sexual abuse, and the home visit report only cited financial and matrimonial friction

Furthermore, school records proved the victim was in school on the day she claimed to be "locked in a room" for the execution of a gift deed, rendering the accusation improbable

Regarding the COVID-19 spreading allegation (WP 2768/2021), the initial NC report omitted the serious "blowing air" allegation, which surfaced 47 days later, indicating an afterthought

In the 2012 rape allegation (WP 3779/2022), the Court found a 10-year unexplained delay and noted that the wife had filed a previous FIR in 2020 stating she had "fallen in love" with the husband, which directly contradicted her later claim of a "forceful marriage" through blackmail

Use of specialized laws as "weaponized strategy" for lucrative settlements was heavily criticized

It held that the proceedings were "manifestly attended with mala fide" and instituted with an "ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance"

The Court clarified that while it typically does not weigh evidence under Section 482, it is duty-bound to "read between the lines" in matrimonial disputes where criminal law is misused as an arm-twisting tactic

Rule was made absolute in all matters