Criminal Application No. 722 of 2020 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 722 OF 2020 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Nilesh s/o Balkishna Lad Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service, Balkishan s/o Baburao Lad Age: 75 years, Occu.: Agri., Amresh S/o Balkishan Lad Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri., Priti w/o Amresh Lad Age: 29 years, Occ.: Household, Applicant no.1 to 4, R/o. Near Varsha Electronics, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Parbhani. Mira w/o Arun Chavan Age: 44 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Pimpalgaon Likha, Gaur Nagar, Parbhani. Manisha w/o Santosh Chavan Age: 38 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Near Jabreshwar Temple, Bhalerao House, Wad Galli, Parbhani
Legal Reasoning
Charushila w/o Shrinivas More Age: 34 years, Occu.: Household, R/o House no.3-10-363/3A, Vivekanand Nagar, Nizambad, Andhara Pradesh. Shriram s/o Balabhau Naik Age: 58 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Sahu Nagar, Pathri, Taluka – Pathri, Dist.Parbhani. Sneha d/o Arun Chavan Age: 21 years, Occu.: Education, R/o. Pimpalgaon Likha, Gaur, Parbhani. 1/9 10. 1. 2. CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt Smita d/o Arun Chavan Age: 17 years, Occu.: Education, R/o. Pimpalgaon Likha, Gaur, Parbhani. Under guardian of applicant no.5 mother. … Applicants (Ori. Accused No.1 to 10) Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Sub Inspector, Mondha Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. Vijayalakshmi Nilesh Lad Age: 25 years, Occu.: Household/Education, R/o. Krushi Sarthi Colony, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. … Respondents (Ori. Complainant) . . . Mr. Sandeep B. Sontakke, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. J. M. Murkute, Advocate for Respondent No.2 . . . CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ. DATE : 19th December, 2022 JUDGMENT (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) : 1. By way of instant application, inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) are invoked by the applicants herein to quash and set aside FIR No. 34 of 2020 lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 with Mondha Police Station, Taluka and District 2/9 CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the consequential proceedings. 2. Brief facts leading to the present case are as under : Respondent no. 2 was married to applicant no.1 Nilesh Lad on 29.01.2020. After narrating the expenses incurred in the marriage, she has informed the police that she went to reside with her husband as well as in- laws, who resided jointly, except applicant nos. 5 to 10. According to her, after one and half month of marriage, there was taunting about she being unable to properly cook and about her bad looks. It is further alleged that she was subjected to mental cruelty. She claims that thereafter she went to reside at Pune with her husband. She has alleged that her in-laws instigated husband on phone and in such background, husband used to abuse her and beat her. She claims that she had been to her maternal house to appear for some examination and when she returned back, at that time applicants abused and insulted her and her father and they were driven out of the house. A joint meeting was held and thereafter she went to Pune to cohabit with her husband on 25.07.2018. She claims that her husband never maintained physical intimacy with her. Thereafter, again her sisters-in-law started instigating the husband and he, in return, started subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty as he did earlier. Lastly, she alleges that put up demand of 3/9 CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt Rs.10,00,000/- for going to Canada and on refusal by her, he stripped her of her stree dhan and dropped her to her maternal house and declared that he is not willing to continue the marriage. Hence the complaint. The above FIR and the consequential proceedings are now sought to be quashed. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants would point out that the FIR is false, baseless and full of afterthought allegations. It is emphasized that the informant stayed with her husband separately but entire family has been roped in with ulterior motive. None of the relatives named in the FIR had indulged in any taunting, commenting or demand. It is pointed out that the FIR is full of general, omnibus allegations without specifying the instances or role played by each of the applicants. The allegations are levelled after considerable delay. Even persons who had no concern with the routine and daily affairs of husband and wife are also named only with the sole intention to harass them. According to learned Advocate for the applicants, present FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore relief as sought is required to be granted. 4. On behalf of the State, learned APP submitted that the FIR carries names of all applicants, including husband. Shortly after a month or so of marriage, all applicants subjected the informant to mental cruelty. There was 4/9 CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt continuous taunting and harassment to her on some or other count. It appears that husband was not interested in continuing the marriage. All other applicants herein have also joined him in maltreating the informant. All details are finding place in the FIR. Even investigating machinery has, upon investigation, found that offence as alleged has been committed. Therefore, according to him, it is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and he prays for dismissal for the application. 5. On behalf of respondent no.2, learned Advocate Mr. Murkute also argued on the same lines and pointed out that husband and in-laws jointly subjected the informant to physical and mental cruelty. Her life was made miserable. She was driven out of the house. When her father came to drop her, at that time, he too was insulted. Therefore, there being clear allegations of harassment, he submitted that, present prosecution needs to be taken to its logical end and accused must face legal action for their deeds. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application. 6. In catena of judgments, including State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal ; AIR 1992 SC 604, Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. ; (2007) 12 SCC 1, Priya Vrat Singh Vs. Shyam Singh Sahai ; (2009) SCC Suppl. 709 and Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. ; (2017) 13 SCC 369, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that inherent 5/9 CRI APPLN 722 OF 2020.odt powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court; firstly, to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C., secondly, to prevent abuse of process of court and thirdly, to secure ends of justice. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the very recent case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others ; (2022) 6 SCC 599, after dealing with the observations in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.;
Decision
ORDER (I) Application is partly allowed. (II) Application of applicant no.1 is disposed of as withdrawn. (III) Application to the extent of applicants nos. 2 to 10 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [A] and [A-2]. (IV) Application is accordingly disposed of. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) VRE 9/9