Wednesday, Dec 08, 2021 | Last Update : 12:23 AM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  02 Sep 2019  Summons issued for ‘harassing’ in-laws quashed

Summons issued for ‘harassing’ in-laws quashed

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Sep 2, 2019, 1:47 am IST
Updated : Sep 2, 2019, 1:47 am IST

According to the plae, Ashwini emanded that her in-laws be removed from the home.

Bombay high court
 Bombay high court

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has quashed summons issued by the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) of a Thane court to a woman, who was accused of harassing her in-laws, observing that the magistrate had neither passed a reasoned order nor conducted a prior inquiry, which is required as per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

A single bench of Justice S.S. Shinde was hearing a criminal application filed by Ashwini (name changed) to quash the summons issued against her by the JMFC.

 

According to the complaint, Ashwini got married to Ashok (name change) in December 2015 at Dadar. At the time of marriage, it was made clear to her that she would be required to live in a joint family and she showed her willingness to join a job after marriage.

According to the application, after marriage, however, she neither performed her household duties nor joined job whereas she demanded that her husband live apart from his father, mother and brother. She also allegedly insisted on Ashok buying the couple a separate house.

In 2015, when Ashok and his father were away from the city, Ashwini allegedly went to her father’s house in Pune on the pretext of ill health. When Ashok went to get her back, according to the plea, she refused to return with him and  demanded that her in-laws be removed from the home.

 

She had also allegedly threatened to take legal action against him. Ther-eafter, her in-laws had filed a case of criminal conspiracy, criminal inti-midation, insult intended to provoke breach of the peace, criminal breach of trust and wrongful confinement against her.

Aswini’s counsel argued that the JMFC should have conducted an inquiry in the matter before issuing the summons, which is mandatory as per section 202 of the CrPC. On the other hand, the lawyer of her in-laws argued that a JMFC could issue summons if there were enough documents given to him by the complainant. Eventually, the high court quashed the summons, but also granted liberty to the in-laws to file a fresh application before the appropriate authority.

 

Tags: bombay high court