High Court
Facts
1435..2023APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 435 OF 20231.Sujata Dattatraya BhandeAge-45 years, Occ : Service,R/o Gandhi Nagar, Behind Bus Stand,Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.2.Ajay Dattatraya BhandeAge-27 years, Occ : Private Job,R/o Gandhi Nagar, Behind Bus Stand,Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.3.Vikram Balbhim PachangeAge-43 years, Occ : Service,R/o Sonai Niwas, Kalamath, Mahajan Galli,Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.4.Dhananjay @ Sunil Balbhim PachangeAge-48 years, Occ : Business,R/o Sonai Niwas, Kalamath, Mahajan Galli,Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.5.Sarika Vikram PachangeAge-37 years, Occ : Household,R/o Sonai Niwas, Kalamath, Mahajan Galli,Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad...APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Station,Ahmednagar Camp, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Nikita Akshay BhandeAge- 25 years, Occ : Household,R/o C/o. Navnath Rangnath UbaleSavta Nagar, Bhingar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar..RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
5435..2023APPLN.odt5.As against this, Mr. A.M. Phule, learned APP and Mr. M.G.Kochar, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 argue thatuncontroverted allegations in FIR certainly make out a case forprosecution to continue and that this Court should not interfere in thematter in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Asregards the statement made before Bharosa Cell, learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 contends that respondent No.2 wanted areconciliation, and therefore, did not refer to demand for dowry in thesaid statement.6.Having perused FIR and statements of the witnesses,which form a part of charge-sheet, we find that the allegations againstthe applicants are vague and completely lacking in material particulars.The period of alleged demand is not mentioned. The demand is statedto be for a motorcycle and gold. However, quantity of gold is also notmentioned in FIR or statements. Apart from this, in her statementbefore Bharosa Cell dated 16.07.2022 there is no reference to anydemand for dowry or harassment on that count. It will be pertinent tostate that Bharosa Cell is attached to a Police Station where parties goonly after there is a dispute. Respondent No.2 has stated in FIR thatsince April, 2022, she was not residing in her matrimonial home. Theallegation regarding demand for dowry, made in FIR does not findplace in the statements made before the Bharosa Cell. The said 6435..2023APPLN.odtstatement is not disputed during the course of hearing. The statementclearly indicates that due to matrimonial discord between the husbandand wife, respondent No.2 was not willing to cohabit with her husband.It also appears from the statement before the Bharosa Cell that thereis discord amongst respondent No.2 on one hand and her in-laws onthe other. It clearly appears from the record that the present applicantshave been roped in a criminal matter by making vague and unspecificallegations regarding demand for dowry. The statements of witnessesare also unspecific most importantly quantity of gold allegedlydemanded is also not specified.7.The entire material considered together as a whole doesnot make out any case to allow the prosecution to continue for offenceunder Section 498-A of IPC. Continuation of prosecution against theapplicants will lead to abuse of the legal process and traversity ofjustice. Although, the other sections are non-cognizable, the materialon record not specific to make out the offence under the saidprovisions also. In view of the circumstances, we are of the opinionthat the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed againstapplicants. We therefore pass the following order :-ORDER(i)The application is allowed. 7435..2023APPLN.odt(ii) FIR No.613/2022 registered against applicant no.1 - SujataDattatraya Bhande, applicant no.2 - Ajay Dattatraya Bhande, applicantno.3 - Vikram Balbhim Pachange, applicant no.4 - Dhananjay @ SunilBalbhim Pachange and applicant no.5 - Sarika Vikram Pachange, withPolice Station Ahmednagar Camp, Dist. Ahmednagar on 12.12.2022for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Regular Criminal CaseNo.1272/2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Ahmednagar, are hereby quashed.(iii)The fees of learned Advocate Mr. M.G. Kochar appointed torepresent respondent No.2, is quantified at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees SevenThousand), to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/
Arguments
2435..2023APPLN.odt...Advocate for the applicants : Ms. Pooja S. Ingle h/d Mr.S.J. Salunke APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.M. PhuleAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.G. Kochar (appointed)…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATED : 05th DECEMBER, 2024., 2024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The present criminal application is filed under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash FIR No.613/2022registered with Police Station Ahmednagar Camp, Dist. Ahmednagaron 12.12.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Afterfiling of the present application, Regular Criminal Case No.1272/2023came to be registered pursuant to the said F.I.R., which is pending onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar.The criminal application is amended in order to challenge the saidcriminal case as well.2.Respondent No.2 is the informant. Her relations with theapplicants are as under :-1.Applicant no.1 – mother-in-law2.Applicant No.2 – brother-in-law3.Applicant No.3 – maternal uncle of applicant no.3. 3435..2023APPLN.odt4.Applicant No.4 – maternal uncle of applicant no.3.5.Applicant No.5- wife of maternal uncle/applicant no.3.3.Respondent No.2 has stated in FIR that her marriage withone Akshay Bhande, son of applicant No.1 was solemnized on04.02.2020. They are blessed with a son named “Rudraksha”, whowas around two years old on the date of lodging of FIR. RespondentNo.2 states that she is residing with her parents for a period of 8months as on the date of lodging of FIR i.e. from somewhere aroundApril, 2022. The in-laws treated her well for period of around sixmonths after her marriage. After period of around six months, she wentto Pune to reside along with her husband and immediately within aperiod of 15 days thereafter, due to Covid-19 lock-down she and herhusband went to reside at the residence of applicant no.3, who ismaternal uncle of her husband. She has alleged that her husbandused to beat and abuse her on instigation of applicant nos.3 to 5. Shestates that after staying with applicant no.3 for some period, she andher husband returned to Kallam and resided with applicant no.1-mother-in-law and applicant no.2 – brother-in-law. She has alleged thatapplicant nos.1 and 2 along with her husband used to harass her atthe instance of applicant nos.3 to 5. Allegation is made that thehusband and applicant nos.1 and 2 asked her to get bullet motorcycleand gold from her parents. 4435..2023APPLN.odt4.We have heard Ms. Pooja S. Ingle, learned Advocateappearing for the applicants. She states that the allegations in the FIRso also the statements of the witnesses that have been recordedduring the course of investigation are absolutely vague. Theallegations are lacking in all particulars and do not make out any casefor continuation of prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC. The date,time and tentative period of alleged demand of dowry and harassmentare not mentioned by respondent no.2 or other witnesses. She statesthat there is some misunderstanding between respondent no.2 and herhusband and as a consequence of that the respondent no.2 has ropedin not only his mother and brother, but also maternal uncles and wife ofone of the maternal uncles by making baseless allegations regardingdemand of dowry and harassment. She has drawn our attention to thestatement dated 16.07.2022 made by respondent No.2 beforeBharosa Cell, which discloses that relations between respondent no.2and her in-laws were strained and that she had made all sorts ofallegations against her in-laws. However, in the statement made beforeBharosa Cell, there is no allegation regarding demand of dowry or anyill treatment on account of failure to fulfill the demand of dowry. Shehas particularly drawn our attention to a statement wherein she hasstated that she is not ready to cohabit with her husband because hedid not accede to certain conditions put by her for residing together.