High Court

Legal Reasoning

969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 20231.Rahul S/o. Madhukar Mule,2.Shashikala W/o. Madhukar Mule,3.Madhukar S/o. Jairam Mule,4.Prashant S/o. Madhukar Mule,5Anant S/o. Madhukar Mule,6.Gunwant S/o. Madhukar Mule,7.Sumitra W/o. Ashok Gaikwad,…APPLICANTSVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,through Superintendent of Police, Hingoli.2.The Investigation Officer,Police Station, Basmath (City) Tq. Basmath Nagar Dist. Hingoli.3.Sau. Rani W/o. Rahul Mule… RESPONDENTS...Advocate for applicants : Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde A.P.P. for respondent/State : Ms. P.V. Diggikar Advocate for respondent No.3 : Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATED : 14.03.2024ORDER (PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure seeking quashment of the crime bearing FIRNo.298/2022 registered with Basamath (City) Police Station, Tq.Basmath Nagar Dist. Hingoli for the offences punishable under Section1/6 969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odt498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, theconsequent charge-sheet and Regular Criminal Case No.114/2023pending with learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basmatnagar DistrictHingoli. 2.We have heard both the sides finally at the stage ofadmission.3.Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR with the allegations interalia that she was married to the applicant No.1 in the year 2017. Shewas maintained properly for a period of first two years, however,thereafter her husband i.e. applicant No.1 and rest of the applicantsstarted taunting her on her looks. She was insulted by saying that shewas useless and applicant No.1 – husband started suspecting her chastity.Even he disowned the child. He used to assault her. A demand formoney was raised for construction of house, she was abused and waskept starving.4.The FIR then alleges that applicant No.1 – husband was thenserving in Agartala Tripura and her father dropped her at his place on25.11.2019. She cohabited with him there for about 10 months duringthe COVID times. However on 20.09.2020 he dropped her at herpaternal home. He quarreled with her parents and maternal siderelatives. He then took her to the matrimonial home were she stayed forcouple of months. She got pregnant second time, however, applicantNo.1 – husband left her there and proceeded to the place of work in2/6 969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odtTripura. It is alleged that on 18.02.2021 the rest of the applicants abusedand assaulted her. She narrated the incident to her parents telephonicallywho brought her back to the parental home on 19.02.2021. She thensubmitted an application to the Women’s Grievance Cell on 03.06.2021but nothing fructified and ultimately she had to file the FIR.5.After hearing both the sides when we express ourdisinclination to grant any relief to applicant Nos.1 to 3 who are thehusband and his parents, the learned advocate for the applicants, oninstructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to their extent.6.The applicant Nos.4 to 6 are the brothers of the husband andthe applicant No.7 is their maternal aunt.7.The learned advocate for the applicants would take usthrough the charge-sheet and would submit that accepting the allegationsat their face value, though something can be attributed to the husbandand the parents-in-law, rest of the applicants have been falsely implicatedto wreak vengeance. There are no specific and precise allegations againstany of them. It is the abuse of the process of law. The application totheir extent may be allowed.8.Per contra, the learned APP and the learned advocate for therespondent No.3 would oppose the application. They would submit thatthere is enough material to reveal complicity of the applicant Nos.4 to 7.The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. An opportunity deservesto be extended to the prosecution to substantiate the allegations. There3/6 969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odtare statements of the witnesses corroborating the version in the FIR. Theextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure need not be invoked.9.We have carefully considered the rival submissions andperused the papers.10.To repeat, we are merely to consider the role attributableapplicant Nos.4 to 7 who are the brothers of the husband and theirmaternal aunt. 11.Obviously, the FIR as well as the statements of the witnessesname all these applicant Nos.4 to 7. The question is as to if they can beattributed with some overt act in respect of the allegations regardingcruelty meted out to the respondent No.3. Collectively, together with theapplicant Nos.1 to 3 they have been alleged to have taken part indemanding money, extending the taunts and subjecting respondent No.3to cruelty. The allegations are ex facie omnibus and vague. 12.True it is that an FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia.However, the matter does not rest at that. The Investigation Officer hascarried out the investigation and has submitted a charge-sheet.Statements of the parental side relatives of the respondent No.3 have alsobeen annexed to the charge-sheet. However, these statements of herparents and brother are equally vague and omnibus apart from beingsame in verbatim. Nothing new over and above what has been alleged inthe FIR has been stated by any of them.4/6 969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odt13.Though it is alleged in the FIR and even appears in thestatements of the witnesses that on 18.02.2021 all the relatives of thehusband have abused and assaulted the respondent No.3, againconsidering the fact that apart from husband there are applicant Nos.2 to7, the statement that all the brothers-in-law having abused and assaultedher, is indeed vague and omnibus. 14.It would be an exercise in futility to make applicant Nos.4 to7 to face the trial on the basis of the quality of evidence/materialcollected by the Investigating Officer. In our considered view, it is yetanother example as to how all the relations of the husband are implicatedwhile lodging a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC. This is aninstance which is squarely covered by the observations of the SupremeCourt in the matter of Preeti Gupta and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand andanr; AIR 2010 SC 3363, Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.and Anr.; AIR 2013 SC 181 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Vs.State of Bihar and Ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 599 and is covered by theinstances laid down in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. V/s Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors.; (1992) SCC (Cri) 426.15.The Application is partly allowed. The crime bearing FIRNo.298/2022 registered with Basamath (City) Police Station, Tq.Basmath Nagar Dist. Hingoli for the offences punishable under Section498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, theconsequent charge-sheet and Regular Criminal Case No.114/20235/6 969.Crl.APPLN.409.23.odtpending with learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basmatnagar DistrictHingoli to the extent of applicant Nos.4 to 7 are quashed and set aside.16.The application to the extent of applicant Nos.1 to 3 isdismissed as withdrawn. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEhabeeb6/6