The Bombay High Court in the case Manisha G. Shah v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors observed and has quashed the chargesheet filed against the woman who is being accused of beating her husband with a broom and biting his hand, holding that the ingredients constituting the offence of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC were absent. The Division bench comprising of Justice Prakash D Naik and Justice NR Borkar in the case observed and has allowed the writ plea moved by the woman. The court observed that the requisite ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 324 of the IPC are completely absent and the injury certificate of the complainant indicates that he had suffered blunt trauma to the right hand. Thus, the medical opinion seek by the police indicates that there is possibility of injuries being caused by self-inflicted. Thus, the complainant has expired and the statement of witness does not support the version of complainant and the charge sheet does not make out offences against the petitioner. The present case originated from an FIR registered at the behest of petitioner’s husband, who accused her of offenses under Sections 324, the voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means, section 427, mischief, section 504, insult with intent to provoke and section 506, the criminal intimidation of the Indian Penal Code, IPC. The allegations made included abuse and assault by using a broom, as well as biting the complainant’s hand. However, the chargesheet filed after the investigation excluded under section 506 of the IPC. The petitioner presented the Death Certificate of the complainant, indicating his demise on 30.04.2022. The court took the said certificate on record. The counsel, Advocate Sagar A Shahani appearing for the petitioner contended before the court that essential elements to establish the offense under Section 324 of IPC were lacking.Further, he submitted before the court that the prosecution witness did not corroborate the complainant’s version. It has also been stated by her that the complainant used to assault the petitioner. Thus, the medical opinion indicated that the purported injuries could be self-inflicted. On the other hand, the counsel Additional Public Prosecutor MM Deshmukh appearing for the State contended before the court that the FIR and statements recorded during investigation clearly outlined the offenses, justifying the filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has stated that the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner was strained, and the FIR did not establish any offense against the petitioner. It was also held by the court that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly,the court quashed the pending proceedings.
