High Court
Legal Reasoning
136 APPLN.1548.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.36 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1548 OF 202401Subhadra W/o Dajiram GaikwadAge: 77 yrs. Occu. Household(Mother-in-law)02Anil S/o. Dajiram GaikwadAge: 56 yrs. Occu. Agri.(Brother-in-law)03Sanjiv S/o. Dajiram GaikwadAge: 52 yrs. Occu. Service(Brother-in-law)04Vaishali W/o. Sanjiv Gaikwad Age: 46 yrs. Occu. Household (wife of Brother-in-law)05Pushpa @ Rohini W/o. Bhausaheb SarwadeAge: 45 yrs. Occu. Household(Sister in law)06Priyanka D/o. Bhausaheb Sarwade (Nice)Age: 30 yrs. Occu. HouseholdAll R/o: Pushpak Niwas,Pashankar Bagh, Lonikalbhor, Ta. Haveli, Dist. Pune.… ApplicantsVersus01The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Tal and Dist. Beed.02Anjali W/o Sunil Gaikwad Age: 32 yrs, occu. Household R/o. Mahatma Phulenagar, Opposite Varad Pride Dhanora Road, Dist. Beed.… Respondents(Resp. No.2 org. informant)
Legal Reasoning
236 APPLN.1548.2024.odt...Mr. Rakesh C. Bramhankar, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1 / State....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :10th March, 2025. Per Court:.Present application has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceedings inR.C.C. No.4 of 2017, pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Beed, arising out of FIR vide C.R. No.616 of 2016, dated29th August, 2016, registered with Shivajinagar Police Station, DistrictBeed, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and thelearned APP for respondent No.1 / State. Though respondent No.2 isserved, she has failed to appear. 3Perusal of the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheetwould show that what is not in dispute is that respondent No.2 had gotmarried on 18th November, 2007 with one Sunil Gaikwad, who is the 336 APPLN.1548.2024.odtson of applicant No.1, brother of applicant Nos.2, 3 and 5. ApplicantNo.4 is the wife of applicant No.3 and applicant No.6 is the daughter ofapplicant No.5. The husband of respondent No.2 expired on 21st April,2021 i.e. during pendency of the case because the charge-sheet cameto be filed on 30th December, 2016. Thus, the proceedings stoodabetted as against him. Further, both the learned Advocates arepointing out that the application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. wasfiled by accused Nos.2 to 7 i.e. present applicants for discharge beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed. However, it came tobe rejected on 22nd June, 2023. Even though the said application hasbeen rejected, it will not bar this Court to exercise its powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C., if the circumstances are shown.4Perusal of the FIR would show that respondent No.2 hascontended that after the marriage she went to reside at the matrimonialplace. She has not explained as to why the married sister-in-law wasresiding with her parents. But still when even applicant Nos.5 and 6have given their address as same that of applicant Nos.1 to 4, weaccept that they were residing with applicant Nos.1 to 4. The informantsays that she was treated properly for about six months and thendirectly she says that she has son aged 8 years on the date of FIR andher husband used to then say that she should bring an amount ofRs.5,00,000/- for construction of new house from her mother. 436 APPLN.1548.2024.odtTherefore, it is not clear since when the alleged demand was startedand then she uses the word “mental and physical harassment” wasgiven with no details at all. As regards the present applicants areconcerned, it is stated that they used to take the side of her husbandand used to tell that why she is not bringing amount of Rs.5,00,000/-as demanded by the husband and then they used to assault her bykicks and fists and used to keep her starving. Once again, it will haveto be considered that FIR does not clarify since when the saidharassment was given. She then states that she was driven out of thehouse by all the accused persons on the ground that she should bringamount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her mother on 19th October, 2009. Shethen states that she had told the said fact to her mother and thereafter,her mother raised an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from her relatives andgave it to the informant and asked her to go for cohabitation.Accordingly, the informant went to the matrimonial home andthereafter, the accused persons started saying that why she hasbrought only Rs.3,00,000/- but she should bring the remaining amountof Rs.2,00,000/- and till she should not return and then within 2-3 daysby harassing her, she was driven out of the house. She then statesthat from 2009 to 2013, she resided with her mother. Thereafter, sheshifted to Pune and started residing in a rented room and admitted herson to the school. They were the only two persons residing together inPune. Then she says that she had given a complaint application on 5th 536 APPLN.1548.2024.odtMay, 2016 with the Women Redressal Forum, Beed, as she wasbrought by her mother to Beed on 1st May, 2016. Thus, it is to benoted that since 2009 till filing of the FIR, no cause of action arose forlodging the FIR. For the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, theperiod of limitation is three years, because we will have to read Section498-A of the IPC together with Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. As perSection 468 (2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance ofthe offence would be three years. Here, the cause of action taking intoconsideration the contents of the FIR as it is, was three years after2009. Here, we would like to rely on the decision of this Court in thecase of Musin Babulal Thengade and others Vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another (Criminal Application No.887 of 2023)decided by this Court on 29th January, 2025, to which one of us (Smt.Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) was a Member. After taking note of thedecisions in Arun Vyas Vs. Anita Vyas, reported in, (1999) CriminalLaw Journal 3479, Ramesh and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,reported in, (2005) AIR SCW 1319, Rupali Devi Vs. State of UttarPradesh, reported in, AIR OnLine (2019) SC 394, Onkar RadhaManohari (Smt) Vs. Venka Venkata Reddy, reported in, 1993 AIRSCW 3595 and also taking note of the provisions of Sections 468, 472and 473 of the Cr.P.C., it has been observed in paragraph No.14 asunder:- 636 APPLN.1548.2024.odt“14. In the light of above, we are of the opinion thatlimitation for offence punishable under Section 498-Aof the IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty.Offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is acontinuing offence implies that each act of crueltywould offer new starting point of limitation. Limitationfor prosecution under Section 498-A does not continuefor indefinite period. Such interpretation will renderSection 468 of the Cr. P.C. nugatory or otiose for thepurpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Codewhich does not appear to be the intention oflegislature. Had there been intention to excludeSection 498-A of the IPC from the sweep of Section468 of the Cr. P.C express provision could have beenmade for the said purpose.”5Filing of the application with the Women Redressal Forumon 5th May, 2016 cannot revive the period of limitation.6Here, in this case i.e. R.C.C. No.4 of 2017, definitely theconcerned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter, though thesame was barred and no reason was assigned for extension oflimitation for taking cognizance of an offence, which was committedprior to 2009 till 2009, as per the contents of the FIR and therefore, itwould be an abuse of the process of law to ask the applicants to facethe trial. Therefore, this is a fit case where we should exercise our 736 APPLN.1548.2024.odtpowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. With these observations, weproceed to pass the following order:-O R D E RI.The application stands allowed.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.4 of 2017, pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Beed, arising out of FIR vide C.R. No.616 of 2016,dated 29th August, 2016, registered with ShivajinagarPolice Station, District Beed, for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, standsquashed and set aside as against all the applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga