High Court

Legal Reasoning

(1) appln-1081-2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 20221.Jalindar S/o. Dinkar Sanap,(Husband)Age: 30 years, Occu. Nil, R/o. Dehu Road, Alandi, District: Pune.2.Dinkar S/o. Dadarao Sanap,(Father in law)Age: 70 years, Occu. Agril.,3.Parubai W/o. Dinkar Sanap,(Mother in law)Age: 65 years, Occu. Agril.,4.Vaijnath S/o. Dinkar Sanap,(Brother in law)Age: 33 years, Occu. Agril.,5.Manisha W/o. Vaijnath Sanap,(Sister in law)Age: 28 years, Occu. Agril.,6.Vaishali Dinkar Sanap,(Sister in law)Age: 37 years, Occu. Agril.,All R/o. Hiwarsinga, Tq. Shirur (K), District: Beed...ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector,Police Station, Dharur,Tq. Dharur, District Beed.2.Radha W/o. Jalindar Sanap,(Radha D/o.Mahadeo Bade)Age: 25 years, Occu. Agril.,R/o. Gaodara, Tq. Dharur,District: Beed...Respondents …Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. M. K. Goyanka, APP for Respondent No.1.Mr. S. R. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2024. (2) appln-1081-2022.odtORDER (Per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):-1.The applicants have approached this Court under Section482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash and set asideFIR vide Crime No.19/2022 dated 05.02.2022 registered withDharur Police Station, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed for offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian PenalCode. Since during pendency of application, charge-sheet has beenfiled, the applicants have added prayer to quash and set asidecharge-sheet and consequential criminal proceeding in RCCNo.52/2022 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class atDharur.2.Initially the application was filed on behalf of all the accusedpersons named in the FIR. However, during hearing of theapplication, prayer was made seeking permission to withdrawapplication to the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3 and advancesubmissions only to the extent of applicant nos.4 to 6. Such prayerwas allowed. Consequently, application to the extent of applicantnos.1 to 3 has been dismissed as withdrawn and considered only tothe extent of applicant nos.4 to 6 herein.3.Mr. Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing for theapplicants vehemently submits that applicants have been falselyimplicated in aforesaid crime. The contents of FIR are bereft tomake out any offence against applicants. Although applicants arenamed in the FIR, allegations are vague and omnibus. Therespondent no.2 may have her grievance against applicant no.1,however, the contents of the FIR would show that the attempt ismade to implicate all the family members and relatives of thehusband with ulterior motive to pressurize them. Mr. Nagargoje (3) appln-1081-2022.odtwould submit that applicant no.4 is brother-in-law, whereasapplicant nos.5 and 6 are co-sister and married sister-in-law ofrespondent no.2 respectively. They are unconcerned with thefamily affairs of respondent no.2 and her husband. Mr. Nagargojewould further invite attention of this Court to the contents ofcharge-sheet to contend that except stereotype omnibus statementsof the father, mother, brother, maternal aunt and husband ofmaternal aunt, no other evidence is made part of the charge-sheet.He would, therefore, urge to quash and set aside FIR and criminalproceeding in RCC No.52/2022 pending before Judicial MagistrateFirst Class at Dharur.4.Per contra Mr. Goyanka, learned APP for the State and Mr.Kedar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 vehementlyopposes the prayers in the application. They would submit thatFIR is not an encyclopedia. The respondent no.2 has specificallyalleged that she was harassed on account of illegal demand by in-laws including applicants herein. There is evidence to show thatall the applicants were involved in commission of offence. In thematrimonial matters, the evidence of only close relatives would beavailable to state about ill-treatment suffered by woman at thehands of in-laws. According to them, the material in the charge-sheet is sufficient for proceeding with trial against applicants.Hence, they urge to reject the application.5.We have considered submissions advanced by the learnedAdvocates appearing for respective parties. We have gone throughthe contents of FIR and material in the charge-sheet. TheSupreme Court of India in case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs.State of Jharkhand and Another1 made certain observations,which are as regards to the matrimonial matters and increasing1AIR 2010 SC 3363. (4) appln-1081-2022.odttendency of misusing penal provisions under Section 498-A of theIndian Penal Code. The observations in paragraph nos.30 and 32are relevant in present case, which reads thus:“30. 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 arenot even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At thesame time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases ofdowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint theimplications and consequences are not properly visualized bythe complainant that such complaint can lead toinsurmountable harassment, agony and pain to thecomplainant, accused and his close relations.”6.Keeping in mind aforesaid observations, if contents of FIRare scanned, it is apparent that respondent no.2 married withapplicant no.1 on 23.06.2018 at Kapildhar, Dist. Beed. In-laws ofrespondent no.2 are resident of village Hiwarsinga, Tq. Shirur(Kasar), Dist. Beed. Within 15 days of marriage, respondent no.2went to Alandi (Pune) where her husband was serving. Tilloutbreak of Corona, she was residing at Alandi. Thereafter, sheresided with in-laws at Hiwarsinga. During this period sheconceived pregnancy and thereafter resided at her maternal homeat village Gaodara. So far as allegations against applicant nos.4 to6 are concerned, the omnibus statement is employed stating thatall applicants were instigating husband for demand of Rs.2,00,000/-from father of respondent no.2. No specific overtact areincorporated so as to make out specific offence against them. Thestatement in the FIR, so far as allegations against applicants doesnot find support by other witnesses except vague and omnibusstatement in the last paragraph. Apparently, allegations in FIR sofar as applicant nos.4 to 6 are bereft to constitute offfence underSection 498-A or Section 504 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (5) appln-1081-2022.odt7.In this background, if the parameters laid down by theSupreme Court of India in case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.2 are considered, the case is made out toexercise the powers under Section 482 of the Criminal ProcedureCode. Further Supreme Court of India in yet another judgment incase of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Another vs TheState Of Bihar and Others3 observed that it would not beappropriate to permit continuation of criminal prosecution againstin-laws on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations. The Courtsare required to check unwarranted prosecution against largenumber of in-laws on the basis of such omnibus allegations. Inthat view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this applicationand proceed to pass following order:ORDERa.Criminal Application is partly allowed.b.The FIR vide Crime No.19/2022 dated 05.02.2022 registeredwith Dharur Police Station, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed for offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian PenalCode and consequential criminal proceeding in RCC No.52/2022pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dharur arehereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant nos.4 to 6i.e. Vaijnath S/o. Dinkar Sanap, Manisha W/o. Vaijnath Sanap andVaishali Dinkar Sanap.c.Criminal Application is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/September-20242AIR 1992 SC 604.3(2022) 6 SCC 599.