Criminal Application No. 418 of 2023 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
{1} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 418 OF 20231.Ashok s/o. Mahadeo Bangar,Age 35 years, Occ. Private Service,2.Prajakta W/o. Ashok Bangar,Age 25 years, Occ. Household,Both R/o. Bangarwadi, Tq. Kallam,Dist. OsmanabadAt present R/o. Plot No.24, Malhar Park,Fursungi, Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune.3.Sandip @ Balasaheb s/o. Chandrabhan@ Chandrasen Kedar,Age 45 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed,At present R/o. Taraswadi, Tq. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli.4. Chandrasen @ Chandrabhan S/o. Yashwant@ Tanaji KedarAge 75 years, Occ. Nil.R/o. Ekurka, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed,At present R/o. Taraswadi, Tq. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli... APPLICANTS.VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Kaij Police Station,Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.2.Arati w/o. Lahur Bangar,Age 23 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Bangarwadi, Tq. Kallam,Dist. Osmanabad.. RESPONDENTS.
Legal Reasoning
{6} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtare not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. Atthe same time, rapid increase in the number of genuinecases of dowry harassment are also a matter of seriousconcern. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaintthe implications and consequences are not properlyvisualized by the complainant that such complaint can leadto insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to thecomplainant, accused and his close relations.”8.In yet another case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Biharreported in (2022)6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court after taking stock ofvarious decisions, rendered by the supreme Court in the subject matter,observed in para. 17 as under.“The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate thatthis court has at numerous instances expressed concern over themisuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency ofimplicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on thecomplainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from thesaid judgments that false implication misbehavior by way ofgeneral omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonialdispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process oflaw. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned thecourts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of thehusband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”9.Similarly, in the case of Sushilkumar Sharma vs. Union ofIndia and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281, the Supreme Courtobserved in para. 19 as under :-“19.The object of the provision is prevention of thedowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by thepetitioner many instances have come to light where the {7} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtcomplaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive.In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipeout the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimesadverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to preventabuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because theprovision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licenceto unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleashharassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for thelegislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolouscomplaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Tillthen the Courts have to take care of the situation within theexisting frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots ofdowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legalterrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be useda shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made toooften as a prank assistance and protection may not be availablewhen the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question ofinvestigating agency and Courts casually dealing with theallegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in thematters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannotbe lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is toarrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Thereis no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuouslyargued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and thecourts start with the presumption that the accused persons areguilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is toowide available and generalized statement. Certain statutorypresumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to benoted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts isthat of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be theireffort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer onaccount of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It isequally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence isavailable and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence.While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating tocircumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”10.bearing in mind the proposition of law espoused byHonourable Supreme Court in aforesaid cases and considering the {8} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtaverments in the FIR and the statement of witnesses in the charge sheet,we find that no offence can be made out against the applicants. Omnibusallegations made against them are palpably false and improbable innature since applicant Nos. 1 and 2 appears to have residents ofFursungi, Dist. Pune, whereas, applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are residents ofTaraswadi, Taluka Atpadi, Dist. Sangli, which are far away places fromthe place of residence of respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, weare of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise ourinherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside theFIR and consequential criminal proceedings against applicants herein.Hence, we pass the following order :-O R D E R[i]The criminal application is partly allowed;[ii]FIR in crime No. 216 of 2020 dated 8.6.2020 registered withKaij Police Station, Taluka Kaij, Dist, Beed for the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and consequentialcriminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 126 of 2020 pending beforeJudicial Magistrate First Class, Kaij, Dist. Beed, is hereby quashed andset aside to the extent of applicants herein.[iii]Since. Mr. Ramraje Kawade, learned advocate is appointedby this Court to represent respondent No.2, his remuneration isquantified at Rs. 7000/-, to be paid through Maharashtra Legal ServicesSub-Committee, Aurangabad,[iv]The application stands disposed of.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]grt/-
Arguments
{2} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtMr. S.G. Kawade, Advocate for applicants (through V.C.)Mr. A.D. Wange, APP for respondent No.1Mr. Ramraje Kawade, Advocate for respondent No.2. (appointed). CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2024. JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPLAGAONKAR, J]. :-1.The applicants have approached this court under Section482 of Cr.P.C., thereby praying to quash and set aside the FIR in CrimeNo. 216 of 2020, dated 8.6.2020, registered with Police Station, Kaij,Taluka Kaij, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and consequential criminal proceeding bearingR.C.C. No. 126 of 2020 pending before learned J.M.F.C. Kaij, Dist. Beed.2.Respondent No.2 herein, lodged report dated 8.6.2020alleging that on 27.5.2017, she has been married with Lahu MahadeoBangar as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, theamount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid by her father to purchase a four wheelerin the name of her husband, who was in service with Central ReservePolice Force (C.R.P.F.) Similarly, the gold and silver ornaments were alsogifted. After one month of the marriage, her husband joined his duties atPulwama, Srinagar. However, she resided at matrimonial homealongwith her in-laws. The was treated well for initial 4 to 5 months.When her husband came back on holidays, he was not making anyconversation with her. When she asked as to why he is behaving in suchmanner and also complained about his changed behaviour to father inlaw, all in-laws assaulted her. Her husband declared that he was not {3} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtwilling to marry with her and also raised a demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs forpurchase of land. She informed the aforesaid incident to her parents.They asked her to bear with them for some time. Her father in law wasin the habit of drinking liquor and troubled her. However, other familymembers prevented her from raising any grievance. When she informedabout the misbehaviour of father in law to husband, her in-laws snatchedher ornaments and driven her out of the home on 10.1.2019. Since thenshe is residing with her parents.3.It is further alleged that she made complaint to WomanGrievance Redressal Desk. Although her husband was noticed about saidcomplaint, he did not appear before the police authorities. It is furtheralleged that her husband performed second marriage with one SheetalSatish Dhas, which was mediated by maternal uncle of her husband. Onthe basis of such information, Crime No. 126 of 2020 came to beregistered with Police Station, Kaij against in all 11 accused personsincluding the present applicants.. The investigation progressed. Finally,charge sheet has been filed in the Court of JMFC, Kaij against accusedpersons in R.C.C. No. 126 of 2020 which is pending for trial.4.Mr. S.G. Kawade, learned advocate appearing for theapplicants vehemently submits that applicant No. 1 is brother in law andapplicant No.2 is the co-sister of respondent No.2. They are residing atPune. Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are distant relatives and unconcerned withfamily affairs of respondent No.2. However, they have been falselyimplicated in aforesaid crime. He would submit that owing to thedispute between the respondent No.2 and her husband, the applicantsare implicated as accused with an intention to bring pressure on the {4} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odthusband. Mr. Kawade would submit that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 areresiding at Pune and seldom visited the parents at Ekurka, Taluka Kaij.Applicant No.3 is a teacher and resides at Taraswadi, Taluka Atpadi, Dist.Sangli since 2002. By inviting attention of this court to the documentsannexed alongwith the application, he would submit that there is amplematerial depicting that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are residing at Fursungi,District Pune since 2014, whereas, applicant No.3 is serving on theestablishment of Zilla Parishad, Taraswadi since 2002. He wouldtherefore urge that no offence can be made out against the applicant onthe basis of omnibus and vague allegations in the FIR.5.Per contra, Mr. A.D. Wange, learned APP and Mr. RamrajeKawade, learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes theprayers in the application, contending that FIR coupled with materialcollected during investigation is sufficient to make out a triable caseagainst the applicants, who are equally responsible for the ill-treatmentagainst respondent respondent No.2.6.We have considered the submissions advanced by learnedadvocates for respective parties. We have minutely perused theallegations in the FIR, the statement of witnesses recorded during thecourse of investigation. It is apparent that respondent No.2 married inthe year 2017 with applicant No.1, who was serving in C.R.P.F. Since10.1.2019 she is residing with her parents. If the contents of the FIR areminutely seen, no stipulations could be discerned to attract any offence.The narration in the FIR is vague, without particulars of any incident androle played by a particular accused. So far as demand of money isconcerned, no particulars of such demand are specified except the {5} 418.23 CRAPLN (2).odtomnibus statement that Rs. 5 Lakhs was demanded for purchase of theland. In the last part of the FIR, allegations are made that her husbandsolemnized second marriage with one Sheetal Satish Dhas, which iswitnesses by maternal aunt, namely Gavlan @ Chandrabhaga Dhas.However, statement of Gavalan do not specify any role of the applicantsin the so called second marriage. She do not claim that she was presentat the time of second marriage of applicant No.1 with Sheetal Dhas. Theother statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigationare omnibus and stereo-type in nature. No particulars of ill-treatmenttowards respondent No.2 are given. The statement of priest , namely,Shripad Pandav is recorded during the course of investigation, who statesthat on call of Mr. Ashok Shivaji Kedar, he acted as a Priest in themarriage of Sheetal Dhas with Lahu Bangar, which took place on1.6.2020. He do not refer about presence or role of any of the applicantsat the time of marriage.7.In this background it would be apposite to refer to theobservations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti GuptaVs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 wherein the apexcourt observed in para. 30, 32 and 34 as under :-“It is a matter of common knowledge thatunfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing inour country. All the courts in our country including thisCourt are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearlydemonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of alarge number of people of the society.32. It is a matter of common experience that most of thesecomplaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat ofthe moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.We come across a large number of such complaints which