The Court was hearing a plea filed by Patil seeking to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against her by her sister-in-law.
The complainant-wife had alleged that her in-laws and Patil had been torturing her and subjecting her to domestic violence.
However, the Court noted that the complainant in her complaint itself, had stated that her in-laws lived in Pune and Patil lived in Bhusawal, where she was serving as a veterinarian.
“When she herself had given the address of the in-laws of Pune and then gives address of the applicant of Bhusawal, then, it was incumbent upon the aggrieved person (complainant) to satisfy as to what point of time the applicant and she herself were staying in the shared household after the marriage. When these basic pleadings are lacking and the documents on record are supporting the address given by the aggrieved person of a different place, then, a case is made out to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the entire proceedings against the applicant,” Justice Kankanwadi opined.
Source: Barandbench
