High Court

Legal Reasoning

cria-764.241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.764 OF 20241) Swapnil S/o Siddharth Katkar, Aged-37 years, Occu:IT Engineer,2) Mr. Siddharth S/o Shriram Katkar, Age-66 years, Occu:Retired,3) Mrs. Sadhana W/o Siddharth Katkar, Age-59 years, Occ:Housewife,4) Mr. Ram S/o Siddharth Katkar, Age-31 years, Occu:IT Engineer.All R/o- Plot No.63, Gulmohar,Lakmanya Housing Society, JagannathNagar, Beltarodi, Nagpur, Dist-Nagpur. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Ramanand Nagar, Jalgaon, Tahsil and District-Jalgaon,2) Mrs. Kranti W/o Swapnil Katkar, Age-28 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o-Plot No.66, Parvati Nagar, Near Gaurabai Hall, Jalgaon, Tahsil and District-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Rupesh M. Daronde Advocate and Mr. Sanjiv S. Sathe Advocate for Applicants. Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.B. Yawalkar Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... cria-764.242 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND R.W. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2024 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present application has been filed invoking the inherentpowers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.648 of 2023pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Jalgaon arising out of the First Information Report (for short “theFIR”) vide Crime No.157 of 2023 registered with RamanandNagar Police Station, Jalgaon on 11th May 2023 for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Daronde along with learnedAdvocate Mr. Sathe for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Dayama,for Respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Yawalkar forRespondent No.2. In order to cut short, it can be stated that thelearned Advocates for respective parties have argued in supportof their contentions. 3.It will not be out of place to mention here itself that after cria-764.243hearing the learned Advocate for the applicants whendisinclination is shown to grant any relief to applicant No.1, uponinstructions, learned Advocate seeks withdrawal of theapplication as against applicant No.1.4.Matter proceeded and heard for the reliefs claimed byapplicant Nos.2 to 4. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2wife got married to applicant No.1 husband on 18th March 2017.Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and applicant No.4is brother-in-law of respondent No.2. At the time of marriageapplicant No.1 was serving in private company at Mumbai andthe matrimonial home of respondent No.2 is at Nagpur. ApplicantNo.1 and respondent No.2 have a son by name Shlok.5.Perusal of the FIR would show that main allegations areagainst applicant No.1. As regards other applicants areconcerned, it has been stated that when applicant No.1 went toresume his duties at Mumbai after the marriage, he had nottaken respondent No.2 along with him. But then at that time shewas residing with applicant Nos.2 to 4. It is then stated that theywere not allowing her to speak with husband and when ever heused to come to Nagpur, they were not allowing her to meet himproperly. It was on account of the allegation that proper honour cria-764.244was not given to them at the time of marriage. If we considerthe other material in the charge-sheet, then we could find thatthere is a complaint application which appears to have beenentertained by the women’s grievance redressal forum whereinsome different story is forthcoming. Further, in her complaintapplication under the Protection of Women from DomesticViolence Act, respondent No.2 has stated that after about fourmonths of the marriage, applicant No.1 had taken a flat inMumbai on rent and took the informant as well as parents tostay at Mumbai and then she says that applicant No.1 used tosay that since it is a first year of the marriage the celebration ofthe festivals should be at Nagpur. Since January 2018,respondent No.2 was then again left at Nagpur with in-laws. Shethen says that in the meantime she became pregnant. So thesecontentions are contrary to her contents of the FIR. In one of theapplication, she says that there were two abortions earlier whichappear to be natural abortions though she had tried to statethat as she was asked to do more work, it resulted inmiscarriage. She has also stated in her complaint applicationthat applicant No.3 was diagnosed with cancer in June 2019.Applicant No.3 underwent operation and also the chemotherapy,wherein informant says that she looked after the mother-in-law cria-764.245and at that time the husband had looked after the informantwell. But then she takes the somersault and says that afterthere was an improvement in the health of mother-in-law, againshe was subjected to cruelty. 6.These facts would show that though there was disputebetween the informant and her husband, she has tried to rope inthe parents-in-law as well as brother-in-law. According to her,the husband had demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to bebrought from her parents when she told him that she should betaken to Mumbai along with him. Therefore, it is also contrary,when in one another complaint application she says that thehusband had taken flat on rent in Mumbai and taken her forresidence. In fact there is absolutely no specific role attributed toapplicant No.4 i.e. brother-in-law. Time and again only words areused that these accused persons have ill-treated or harassed herbut the incidents have not been quoted or the details of the ill-treatment have not been given as against applicant Nos.2 to 4and therefore, it would be unjust to ask these applicants to facethe trial with this kind of evidence. Definitely, case is made outfor exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in favour of applicant Nos.2 to 4. Hence the followingorder:- cria-764.246 O R D E R(I)The Application stands partly allowed.(II)The Application as against applicant No.1 -Swapnil S/o Siddharth Katkar stands dismissed aswithdrawn.(III)Application as against applicant Nos. 2 to 4stands allowed.(IV)The proceedings in R.C.C. No.648 of 2023pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Jalgaon arising out of the First InformationReport vide Crime No.157 of 2023 registered withRamanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon on 11thMay 2023 for the offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed andset aside as against applicant Nos.2 to 4. i.e. -2) Mr. Siddharth S/o Shriram Katkar, 3) Mrs.Sadhana W/o Siddharth Katkar and 4) Mr. Ram S/oSiddharth Katkar.[R.W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/NOV24