1. Rohidas s/o Deepak Kurhade (withdrawn) Sulochana w/o Deepak Kurhade 2. 3. Deepak s/o v. The State of Maharashtra Aarti w/o Rohidas Kurhade 1. 2
Case Details
cran1001.21 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1001 OF 2021 1. Rohidas s/o Deepak Kurhade (withdrawn) Sulochana w/o Deepak Kurhade 2. 3. Deepak s/o Balasaheb Kurhade Sagar s/o Deepak Kurhade 4. Shital w/o Sagar Kurhade 5. versus The State of Maharashtra Aarti w/o Rohidas Kurhade 1. 2. ...Applicants ...Respondents ..... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. R.V. Dasalkar Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.M. Deshmukh ….. CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 20th JUNE, 2023. PER COURT :- 1. This is an application for quashment of F.I.R. No. 14 of 2021 registered with Devpur police station, Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and consequential proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 76 of 2021 pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. Dhule. 2. 3. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that applicant No.1 has been serving as Bank Manager in Gujarat. The cran1001.21 -2- informant was residing with him. The other applicants were not staying with them in Gujarat. The informant’s uncle passed away on 30.6.2019 at Dhule. The informant left the house on 3.7.2019 to visit Dhule. The applicant husband was opposing for going to Dhule alone. She did not listen. She went to Dhule for no return. The applicant husband had to issue her notice calling upon her to resume marital tie. She did not respond. As a counter to the said notice, the informant lodged the false F.I.R. The applicant husband has even filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. The informant still did not return to her matrimonial home. According to the learned advocate, reading of the F.I.R. would indicate that the averments are general in nature and as vague as it could be. No details as to how the applicants ill-treated the informant have been given. Even the wife of brother in law of the informant has not been spared. According to him, the applicant husband being the manager of the bank may not have made demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of a car. According to the learned advocate, allowing the prosecution to proceed against the applicants would be a sheer abuse of process of the Court. He therefore, urged for grant of the application. 4. The learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for respondent No.2/informant would, on the other hand, submit that, at this stage the averments in the F.I.R. and the statements of witnesses have to be looked into and mini trial can be conducted here. According to them, the allegations in the F.I.R. and the cran1001.21 -3- statement of maternal uncle, suggest the involvement of the applicants in the crime in question. According to them, this is not fit case to grant relief. They therefore, urged for rejection of the application. 5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the F.I.R. and police papers. The informant married the applicant No.1 in
Legal Reasoning
November, 2017. According to her, she was treated well for first six months after her marriage. The applicant husband was serving as Bank Manager in Gujarat. It is her case that the applicant husband wanted to buy a car and therefore, he asked her to fetch a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents. It has further been averred in the F.I.R., that her parents were financially poor and were unable to meet out the demand. The in-laws ( सासरची मंडळी) would also ill-treate her with a view to fetch a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchase of car. It is further averred in the F.I.R. that her uncle passed away on 30.6.2019. She wanted to visit Dhule for funeral. She was not allowed to go. She therefore, went to Dhule on 3.7.2019. The in-laws relieved her of her Stridhan before she left her house for Dhule. It has further been averred that her brother and maternal uncle had informed the applicant husband that they did not have financial ability to meet out the demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. They requested the applicants to allow the informant to resume the marital tie. Applicants even did not listen. The statements of brother, maternal uncle of the informant and mother as well are on the same lines. cran1001.21 -4- 6. Close reading of F.I.R. would indicate that no specific role has been attributed to any of the applicants. What has been averred is reproduced below for better appreciation, is that:- ^^yXukuarj lgk efgus ek÷;k lkljP;k yksdkauh eyk pkaxyh okx.kqd fnyh o R;kuarj ek>s irh jksfgnkl gs cWadsr vlfLVaV eWustj vlY;kus R;kauk cWadsr tk.;klkBh dkj ?;ko;kph vkgs] rw ekgs:u dkj ?ks.;klkBh 5 yk[k :i;s ?ksoqu ;s Eg.kqu ek>s lkljps eaMGh gs eyk lkaxw ykxys- eh R;kauk lkafxrys dh] ek>s ofMy e;r >kys vlwu] ek>s vkbZ o Hkkokaph ,so<s iSls ns.;kph ifjfLFkrh ukgh] ckcr R;kauk letkoqu lkaxr gksrh- ijarq] rs lrr iS’kkaph ekx.kh d:u eyk f’kohxkG o nenkVh d:u ek>k ‘kkjhjhd o ekufld NG djhr gksrs- R;kckcr] eh ek÷;k ekgsjh vkbZ] HkkÅ o ekek ;kauk Qksu d:u rlsp /kqGs ;sFks vkY;koj eyk gks.kkÚ;k =klkckcr lkaxr gksrs- ijarq] rs eyk letkoqu lkaxr gksrs dh] rq FkksMs fnol =kl lgu dj rq÷;k lkljph ifjfLFkrh pkaxyh gksbZy] Eg.kqu eh =kl lgu d:u lalkj djhr gksrh- ijarq] ek>s lklq o lkljs rlsp fnj o fnjk.kh vls ek>s irhyk ek÷;k fo”k;h [kksV;k xks”Vh o xkÚgk.ks lkaxr vlY;kus rs eyk ekjgk.k o okbZV f’kohxkG d:u ftos ekj.;kP;k /keD;k nsr vlr o lkaxr vlr dh] yXu gksoqu ,so<s fnol >kys vlqu rqyk eqyckG gksr ukgh] eh rqyk lksMqu nsbZy o nqljs yXu djsy v’kk /keD;k lrr nsr vlr- eyk ekgsjh ofMy e;r >kY;kus vkfFkZd vk/kkj ulY;kus eh R;kapk jkstpk ekufld o ‘kkjhjhd =kl lgu d:u lalkj djhr gksrs- fnukad 30@06@2019 jksth ek>s dkdk /kksaMw lksek f’kans gs e;r >kY;kus eyk R;kaps vaR;;k=syk cran1001.21 -5- /kqGs ;sFks tk.ks t:jhps vkgs ckcr eh ek÷;k lkljP;k eaMGhauk lkafxrys vlrk] R;kauh fnukad 03@07@2019 jksth ek÷;k vaxkoj vlysys L=h/ku ek÷;kdMwu ekxqu ?ksrys o rq dkj ?ks.;klkBh ekgs:u ikp yk[k :i;s ?ksoqu ;s vls lkaxqu ek÷;k irh ;kauh eyk ,dVhyk ,l- Vh- e/;s cloqu fnys- eh /kqGs ;sFks ekgsjh ;soqu ek÷;k ekgsjP;k yksdkauk lnj =klkckcr lkafxrys vlrk ek>s ekek] HkkÅ o ikgq.ks vls ek>s lkljh tkoqu ek÷;k irhyk o lkljP;k eaMGhauk vkeph ikp yk[k :i;s ns.;kph ifjfLFkrh ukgh ckcr R;kauk letkoqu lkafxrys o rqEgh eqyhl ukanfo.;kl ?ksoqu tk ckcr fouarh dsyh rsOgk rqEgh ikp yk[k :i;s |k rjp eqyhl ukanfo.;kl ikBok vls cksyqu R;kauk ijr ikBoqu fnys- R;kuarj eh ek>s lkljps yksd eyk ukanfo.;kl ?ksoqu tkrhy ;k vis{ksoj Fkkacyh gksrh-** 7. There are no specific allegations against any of the applicants. Admittedly, applicant No.1 and respondent informant were residing together in Gujarat. All other applicants were residing in Maharashtra. The F.I.R. and other police papers do not make out a case as to when other applicants had occasion to visit Gujarat and ill-treat the informant in connection with demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. Even the wife of brother-in-law of the informant has not been spared. The facts indicate that the F.I.R. came to be registered after the applicant husband had issued notice, calling upon respondent informant to resume cohabitation. No explanation is coming forward as to why there was no positive response. The record further indicates that the husband has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Taking into consideration the averments in the F.I.R. it does appear cran1001.21 -6- that the allegations against applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are vague and general in nature. They have been described as in-laws ( सासरची मंडळी). Thus, allowing the applicant Nos. 2 to 5 to face the prosecution would be a sheer
Decision
abuse of process of Court. In the result, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “B” and “B-1” to the extent of applicant Nos. 2 to 5. 8. In so far as application to the extent of applicant No.1 is concerned, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicant No.1. Leave granted. The application of applicant No.1 is allowed to be withdrawn. 9. Criminal application is accordingly disposed of. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.) rlj/