In a significant ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Kshitija Vijay Kakade v/s The State Of Maharashtra, Through Vijapurnaka Police Station, Solapur & Another, the court recently quashed an FIR against a petitioner, designated as Original Accused No. 6, related to a domestic dispute. The case stemmed from C.R. No. 616 of 2019, filed on September 22, 2019, at the Vijapurnaka Police Station in Solapur City, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, who was alleged to be the girlfriend of the principal accused, Sachin M. Chabukswar, was embroiled in a complaint made by Respondent No. 2. The complaint detailed claims that the petitioner was involved in an illicit relationship with Respondent No. 2's husband. It was noted that in October 2017, Respondent No. 2 received a phone call alerting her to this affair, leading her to investigate her husband’s mobile phone, where she discovered photographs of the petitioner.

The FIR also indicated that on March 28, 2019, the husband, under the influence of alcohol, gifted gold jewelry to the petitioner, leading to an altercation where he allegedly attempted to throttle Respondent No. 2 when she objected.

Initially, on July 28, 2020, the court issued a notice to Respondents No. 1 and 2 and granted a stay on filing the charge sheet against the petitioner without prior permission from the court. As the case progressed, the petitioner’s legal counsel presented arguments asserting that the allegations were primarily directed at the husband and were vague regarding the petitioner’s involvement.

Despite multiple hearings, Respondent No. 2 failed to appear, prompting the court to examine the merits of the case.

The court highlighted that the allegations against the petitioner lacked specificity and did not demonstrate any direct assault or threats from her to Respondent No. 2. It referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police & Anr., which clarified that a girlfriend or concubine does not fall under the definition of 'relative' in the context of Section 498-A IPC.

In light of this interpretation, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was not a legally recognized relative of Respondent No. 2, the provisions of Section 498-A could not apply to her. Furthermore, the court found that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute an offense against the petitioner as per the standards established in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner would represent an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, it allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and affirming that the legal protections against domestic violence should not extend to parties not recognized as relatives under the law.

This ruling underscores the judicial emphasis on the precise applicability of legal definitions and the necessity for clear evidence in cases of domestic disputes. The court's decision serves as a critical reminder of the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights against unfounded allegations.