1.

The Petitioners are Indian citizens and residing at the address as mentioned in the title clause
of the petition.
2. The Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No.2 is the
informant/complainant in C.R.No. I-106/2012 registered with Nalasopara Police Station
against petitioners for an offence punishable u/s. 406, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC. Hereto annexed
and marked as EXHIBIT-A is copy of F.I.R. lodged by the Respondent No.2 at Nalasopara
Police Station against the petitioners.
3. The Petitioners state that, in December 2002 Petitioner No.1 was working in Parle
International Hotel, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai as an Executive Manager. In June 2003, the
Respondent No.2 along with her father and mother, due to renovation of their house, were
residing in the said hotel. During this period, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 came
to know each other and became best friends. Later on friendship was converted into love
affair and both of them decided to marry with each other. The Petitioner No.2 and 3 were
agreed for marriage but the father and mother of Respondent No.2 initially have not agreed
for marriage as they asked the Petitioner No.1 to become Ghar-Jamai for which the Petitioner
No.1 has refused. The Respondent No.2 made request to Petitioner No.1 to adjust with the
situation for some time as the father and mother of the Respondent No.2 are old aged parents.
The Petitioner No.1 has agreed for the same due to love upon the Respondent No.2.
4. The Petitioners state that on 08.10.2003 the engagement ceremony of Petitioner No.1 and
Respondent No.2 took place at Vile Parle, Mumbai.
5. The Petitioners state that on 20.11.2003 the marriage ceremony of the Petitioner No.1 and
Respondent No.2 took place as per Hindu Vedic Rites at Vile Parle (W), Mumbai in the
presence of relatives and friends of both the parties. Out of the said wedlock, on 12.09.2004,
the Respondent No.2 has delivered one baby namely Abhijeet who is seven years old and at
present in the custody of the Respondent No.2.
6. The Petitioners state that, during matrimonial life, the Respondent No.2 has failed to perform
her matrimonial duties and responsibilities towards the Petitioner No.1. The Respondent
No.2 was also having suspicious character. The said facts were brought to the notice of father
and mother of the Respondent No.2 by the Petitioner No.1. But instead of giving
understanding to the Respondent No.2, the father and mother of the Respondent No.2
supported the irresponsible behavior of the Respondent No.2 and all of them used to insult
the Petitioners by using abusive language which caused physical and mental cruelty to the
Petitioner No.1. Despite this, Petitioner No.1 continues the matrimonial life with the

Respondent No.2 with the hope that one or the other day there will be change in the behavior
of the Respondent No.2 and her father and mother.
7. The Petitioners state that in August 2005, Petitioner No.1 purchased a flat on ownership basis
at Sai Prasad Co-op. Hsg. Society, Vasai (E) by availing housing loan. The Petitioner No.2
also gave financial assistance to Petitioner No.1 for purchasing the said flat and for purchase
of household articles. The Petitioner No.1 several times made
Page 6 part missing; Continued from Page 7:

Respondent No.2 was not taking proper care of the son Abhijeet. Considering the welfare of
the son Abhijeet, the Petitioners requested the Respondent No.2 for allowing them to enter
the name of the son Abhijeet for education in better school at Chittaranjan, West Bengal for
which Respondent No.2 had agreed as she did not want to take responsibility of the son
Abhijeet. The Respondent No.2 was always under the influence of her father and mother. The
Respondent No.2 never thought about the matrimonial life and welfare of the son Abhijeet.
The Respondent No.2 ruined the matrimonial life of the Petitioner No.1 as she behaved and
acted only as per the wish of her father and mother who were always responsible for the
matrimonial dispute of the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2.

10. The Petitioners state that in the month of December, 2009 the Petitioner No.1 left the job at
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat on the say of Respondent No.2 and came to Vasai.
11. The Petitioners state that on 18.01.2010 the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 left the
house at around 6.30 p.m. for purchasing certain things from the market and returned to
home at around 7.30 p.m. Thereafter the Petitioner No.1 again left the house for purchasing
medicines from medical shop. On the way to medical shop, three unidentified persons
enquired with the Petitioner No.1 about the second marriage. The Petitioner No.1 asked
them about their names and identity. Out of which one person told his name as Fernandes
who is journalist by profession. Thereafter, all of them suddenly started beating the Petitioner
No.1 with fist and blows and wooden sticks. The person namely Vikas Shukla who was
residing in the same house society and who was standing thereby also started beating the
Petitioner No.1 by blows and throwing bricks upon the Petitioner No.1 due to which
Petitioner No.1 suffered from grievous injury. The Petitioner shouted for help due to which
pedestrian came for rescue and all three unidentified persons and Vikas Shukla ran away

from the spot. The Petitioner No.1 with the help of some persons came at home. After some
time, the so called journalist namely Fernandes, two unidentified persons and Vikas Shukla
reached at the Petitioner No.1 house and by using criminal force pulled the Petitioner out of
the house and started beating the Petitioner No.1 by fist and blows. The Petitioner No.1 tried
his level best to rescue from them and entered in the house. The blood was oozing out from
the right side of the nose. After some time, the neighbor namely Balbir Singh and three
unidentified persons entered in the house and by using criminal force started assaulting the
Petitioner No.1 by fist and blows. The Petitioner No.1 rescued himself from them and entered
in the bathroom. The Petitioner No.1 enquired with the Balbir Singh the reason behind the
assault to which he replied the attack was made in the Petitioner No.1 on the say of the
Respondent No.2. The Petitioner No.1 was shocked and surprised after hearing that
Respondent No.2 hired some person and caused to made attack on the Petitioner No.1 as she
was having suspicion that Petitioner No.1 was having extra marital affair and Petitioner No.1
performed the second marriage. The Respondent No.2 and others by making criminal
conspiracy assaulted the Petitioner No.1 with an intention to kill him.
12. The Petitioners state that the Petitioner No.1 immediately informed the said incident to
Petitioner No.2 and 3 and on 19.01.2010 they arrived at Vasai along with the son Abhijeet.
13. The Petitioners state that the Petitioner No.1 approached the Nalasopara Police Station for
taking legal action against accused persons but police authority instead of taking legal action,
registered non-cognizable offence vide N.C No. 334/2010 for an offence punishable u/s 323,
504 and 506 of I.P.C. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-B is copy of N. C. No.
334/2010 registered by Nalasopara Police Station.
14. The Petitioners state that police officers of Nalasopara police station has sent the Petitioner
No.1 for medical treatment to primary Health Centre Nalasopara Tal:- Vasai. Hereto annexed
and marked as EXHIBIT-C Colly are the copies of injury certificate issued by I/C Medical
Officer of Primary Health Centre, Nalasopara Tal: - Vasai for the injuries sustained by the
Petitioner No.1 and other medical papers of the Petitioner No.1 about the treatment.
15. The Petitioners state that on 19/01/2010 a society meeting was held in which the Respondent
No.2 accepted her crime and she has given in her own handwriting apology letters to the
society, Petitioners and to the Police authority. In the said apology letters, Respondent No.2
admitted the fact that she left the matrimonial house along with her parents as per her wish.
At that time, she has taken away all her stuff, gold ornaments, money and other things and

nothing has been left in the possession of the Petitioner No.1. The Respondent No.2 also had
given custody of the son Abhijeet to the Petitioner No.1 as she was not good mother. Hereto
annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-D Colly are the copies of apology letters written by the
Respondent No.2 to the society, Petitioners and to the Police Authority.
16. The Petitioners state that due to the incident of 18.01.2010, the Petitioner No.1 was not able
to work as he was suffering from depression. Therefore, the Petitioner No.1 sold his
ownership flat and shifted to Chittaranjan, West Bengal.
17. The Petitioners state that on 24.05.2011 the Respondent No.2 with her father came at
Chittaranjan, West Bengal and took custody of the son Abhijeet. Hereto annexed and marked
as EXHIBIT-E is copy of letter issued by the Respondent No.2 to Petitioner No.1 about the
custody of the son Abhijeet.
18. The Petitioners state that Respondent No.2 and her father and mother never allowed the
Petitioners to talk with the son Abhijeet under some or other pretext. Considering the welfare
of the son Abhijeet and in order to save the matrimonial life, the Petitioner No.1 requested
the Respondent No.2 to resume matrimonial life. But due to adamant and whimsical behavior
of the Respondent No.2 and her father and mother, the efforts taken by the Petitioner No.1
did not come out with fruitful results.
19. The Petitioners state that there was no communication between the Petitioner No.1 and
Respondent No.2 for one and half years. On 10.02.2012, one person namely Taj Mohamad
Khan, President of Nationalist Human Rights Movement of India called the Petitioner No.1
and threatened the Petitioners of falsely implicating them in to false criminal case and to
defame them in the eyes of the society by making false allegations and will publish into
newspaper and news channel and also threatened them of dire consequences. Hereto annexed
and marked as EXHIBIT-F Colly are the copies of letters sent by the Taj Mohamad Khan
through fax to the Petitioner No.1.
20. The Petitioners state that on 02.04.2012 the Petitioner No.1 has made an application to the
security cell of Police Commissioner, Mumbai to resolve the matrimonial dispute and to save
the matrimonial life of the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 by way of counseling. The
copy of the said application was also sent to Sr. P.I. of Vile Parle Police Station and
Nalasopara Police Station in order to bring all facts of the case to their notice. Hereto
annexed and marked as EXH-G Colly are the copies of Application dated 02.04.2012 made
by the Petitioner No.1 to Social Security Cell of Police Commissioner, Mumbai, Sr. P. I of
Vile Parle Police Station and Nalasopara Police Station along with RPAD Receipts and

acknowledge cards duly signed by the office of Vile Parle Police Station and Nalasopara
Police Station.
21. The Petitioners state that, the Home Department of Government of Maharashtra has issued
Government Notification dated 29.05.2010 in order to avoid misuse of Sec. 498-A of IPC
and necessary guidelines to be followed by the Police Officers before initiating legal action
in respect of matrimonial dispute. Hereto annexed and marked as EXH-H is the copy of
Government Notification dated 29.05.2010.
22. The Petitioners state that, on 06.04.2012 the Respondent No.2 called the Petitioner No.1 at
Hotel Fountain, Ghodbunder Road, Thane for a joint meeting in order to solve matrimonial
dispute. When the Petitioner No.1 reached at the spot, Respondent No.2 was present along
with some unknown persons who represented as activist of organization namely Nationalist
Human Rights Movement of India. The Respondent No.2 introduced Taj Mohamad Khan
with the Petitioner No.1 as a President of Nationalist Human Rights Movement of India. The
Petitioner No.1 was shocked and surprised as Taj Mohamad Khan was one of the Accused
from the unidentified person and who was instrumental for the occurrence of incident on
18.01.2010. The Respondent No.2 and Taj Mohamad Khan called the Investigation Officer
Mr. Phadke who was standing nearby the Fountain Hotel. The Petitioner No.1 was arrested
by the Investigation Officer Mr. Phadke and Taj Mohamad Khan so called the President of
organization namely Nationalist Human Rights Movement of India and other activists of that
organization. They took Petitioner No.1 to Nalasopara Police Station through private vehicle
Mahindra Bolero bearing No. MH-04 GL 150 and put him behind the bars. The Petitioner
No.1 was produced before the Honble J.M.F.C. Vasai, Dist- Thane on 07.04.2012. Thereafter
the Petitioner No.1 was released on bail by the Honble Court on 09.04.2012. Hereto annexed
and marked as EXHIBIT-I Colly are the copies of Remand Reports dated 07.04.2012,
09.04.2012 and order passed thereon, bail application dated 09.04.2012 along with order
passed below it.
23. The Petitioners state that, since the Petitioner No.2 and 3 also apprehended an arrest at the
hand of Nalasopara Police Station they had approached the Honble Sessions Court, Vasai,
Dist- Thane and filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail on 27.04.2012. the
Respondent No.2 has appeared in the proceedings of the Anticipatory bail application
through her counsel and filed written arguments for opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to
the Petitioner No.2 and 3. After hearing both the parties, the Honble Sessions Court, Vasai

was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner No.2 and 3. Hereto marked and
annexed as EXHIBIT-J Colly are the copies of Anticipatory Bail Application dated
27.04.2012 filed by the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 along with Interim and Final Order passed by
the Honble Sessions Court, Vasai and written arguments filed by the Respondent No.2.
24. Being aggrieved by illegal action on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioners seek to
approach this Honorable Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and
Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for seeking inter alia direction to quash and set aside
F.I.R. lodged against petitioners by the Respondent No.2 at Nalasopara Police Station vide C.
R. No. I-106/2012 u/s. 406,498-A r/w. 34 of I.P.C. on the following amongst other grounds,
which are set out herein below and without prejudice to each other:GROUNDS
A. The allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
petitioners.
B. The criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted by the Respondent No.2 with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioners and with a view to spite them due to
private and personal grudge.
C. The FIR is without any foundation. Investigation into the FIR and eventually a prosecution is
likely to cause unnecessary harassment to the Petitioners. That would amount to abuse of
process of law.
D. The allegations incorporated in the FIR or the complaint does not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out case against the Petitioners.
E. The allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the Petitioners.
F. The criminal proceedings are initiated on illicit material which are per se illegal and vitiate
not only a conviction and sentence based on such a material but also trial itself, the
proceeding cannot be allowed to go on as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the
Court. In such a case not quashing the proceedings would perpetuate abuse of the process of
the court resulting in great hardship and injustice to the Petitioners.
G. The chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution against the Petitioners. It is expedient and in the interest of
justice to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

H. The Petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the
Respondent No.2 and they are falsely implicated in the present crime.
I. That after going through the FIR, no prima facie case has been made out by the Respondent
No.2 against the Petitioners.
J. The complaint file by the Respondent No.2 is a fraudulent act with an intention to file a false
criminal case against the petitioners.
K. The present dispute is matrimonial dispute and Police has converted this dispute as criminal
one with the help of the Respondent No.2 and under the political influence.
L. The Respondent No.2 has left her matrimonial home on 19/01/2010 and since then
Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner No.1 i.e. Mr. Surajit Gupta are residing separately. At the
time of leaving matrimonial home, the Respondent No.2 has given in writing that, she left the
matrimonial home along with her parents as per her wish and she has taken away all her
belongings and gold ornaments with her and nothing had been left with her husband i.e.
Petitioner No.1. She has also given in the custody of the son Abhijeet to the Petitioner No.1.
The Respondent No.2 accepted her crime and given in her own handwriting apology letters
to the society, Petitioners and to the police authority.
M. The Petitioner No.2 is employed with Railways outside Mumbai. It is highly improbable as
alleged by the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner No.2 and 3 came at Vasai and caused
harassment to the Respondent No.2 and instigating the Petitioner No.1.
N. On 18.01.2010 an incident occurred wherein the Respondent No.2 was found instrumental to
the assault caused on Petitioner No.1. There is writing in the form of apology letters given by
the Respondent No.2 to the society, Petitioners and to the Police Authority, in respect of the
said incident.
O. The police authority has not followed the guidelines issued by Honble apex court, Home
Department of Govt. of India and law and judiciary department of Maharashtra Govt. in
respect of S. 498(A) complaint.
P. The ingredients of the offence are missing in the present crime.
Q. The Petitioners are law abiding citizens with no criminal background of any nature.
R. The prosecution against the Petitioners is gross violation of the due process of law. The
Informant has filed the FIR belatedly with the malafide intention and ulterior motive to
harass the Petitioners and to implicate them in a false crime.
S. The Respondent No.2 is a politically very influential person and hence police have registered
crime against the Petitioners.

T. The prosecution is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality and

unreasonableness. Such an act of the Respondent No.2 violates articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22
of the Constitution of India.
U. If the prosecution is allowed to continue, serious prejudice will be caused to the Petitioners
and they would be called upon to face a trial which would not be sustainable in the eyes of
law. Hence the FIR/Crime registered against the Petitioners is liable to be quashed and set
aside by this Honble Court.
V. Allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature.
W. There is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. In these circumstances,
continuation of the prosecution against the Petitioners is nothing but an abuse of due process
of law. Hence the said crime is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Honble Court.
X. The prosecution initiated the Petitioners is illegal and bad in law and as such liable to be
quashed and set aside by this Honble Court.
25. The Petitioners craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete, and substitute any of the aforesaid
paragraphs, if necessary.
26. The Petitioners have not filed any other Petition, Application, Appeal or Revision either in
this Honorable Court or in the Honorable Supreme Court of India for the same or similar
reliefs.
27. The Petitioners have approached this Honble Court as expeditiously as possible and there is
no delay in filing the present petition.
28. The Respondents are amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. The cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. Therefore, this Honorable
Court has jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present Writ Petition.
29. The Petitioners state that they have no other efficacious, speedy, alternate, legal remedy but
to approach this Honorable Court by way of present Criminal Writ Petition for the reliefs
prayed therein.
30. The Petitioners, therefore, pray that:a) Rule be issued and Record and Proceedings be called for;
b) The First Information Report in C.R. No. I-106 of 2012 of Nalasopara Police Station,
Dist- Thane for an offence punishable u/s. 406, 498-A r/w. 34 of I.P.C. lodged by the
Respondent No.2 against the Petitioners be quashed and set aside;
c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, further investigation in respect of C.R.
No. I-106 of 2012 of Nalasopara Police Station, Dist-Thane may kindly be stayed;
d) Interim and/or Ad-interim reliefs in terms of clause no. (c) above may kindly be granted;
and

e) Any other order deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be
passed.

And for this act of kindness and justice, the Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Mumbai

16th July, 2012