High Court
Facts
{1} 1551.22 R crapln.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1551 OF 20221. Shailesh S/o. Ganpat Gadalwad,Aged 32 years, Occ. Service,R/o. House No. 2842, Radhika Nagar,Taroda (Kh.), Nanded,Tq. And Dist. Nanded.2.Sow. Shivkanta W/o. Ganpat Gadalwad,Age 50 years, Occ. Household,R/o. House No. 2842, Radhika Nagar,Taroda (Kh.), Nanded,Tq. And Dist. Nanded.3.Ganpat S/o. Jalbaji GadalwadAge 57 years, Occ. Govt. Service.R/o. House No. 2842, Radhika Nagar,Taroda (Kh.), Nanded,Tq. And Dist. Nanded.4.Shubham S/o. Ganpat GadalwadAge 27 years, Occ. Education,R/o. Hermitage Bunglow, Shri HariSociety, Near Ganpati Mandir,Dhankawadi, Pune 411 043.5.Sow. Subhadra W/o. Ramrao Gadalwad,Age 61 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Ward No.2, Islapur,Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.6.Sow. Sulochana @ Soni W/o.Subhash Yerpalwad,Aged 30 years, occ. Household,R/o. New Mondha, Mukhed,Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.7.Sow. Archana W/o. Datta Varvante,Aged 40 years, Occ. Household,
Legal Reasoning
{8} 1551.22 R crapln.odtthis court has at numerous instances expressed concern over themisuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency ofimplicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on thecomplainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from thesaid judgments that false implication by way of general omnibusallegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if leftunchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned thecourts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of thehusband when no prima facie case is made out against them.11.Similarly, in the case of Sushilkumar Sharma vs. Union ofIndia and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281, the Supreme Courtobserved in para. 19 as under :-“19.The object of the provision is prevention of thedowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by thepetitioner many instances have come to light where thecomplaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive.In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipeout the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimesadverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to preventabuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because theprovision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licenceto unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleashharassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for thelegislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolouscomplaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Tillthen the Courts have to take care of the situation within theexisting frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots ofdowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legalterrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be useda shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made toooften as a prank assistance and protection may not be availablewhen the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question ofinvestigating agency and Courts casually dealing with theallegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in thematters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot {9} 1551.22 R crapln.odtbe lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is toarrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Thereis no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuouslyargued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and thecourts start with the presumption that the accused persons areguilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is toowide available and generalized statement. Certain statutorypresumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to benoted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts isthat of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be theireffort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer onaccount of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It isequally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence isavailable and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence.While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating tocircumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”12.On perusal of the charge sheet, it is discernible that thestatement of relatives of respondent No.2 are recorded. However, in allthose statements, certain allegations are employed only against applicantNos. 1 to 3. There is no support to the allegations regarding involvementof the applicant Nos. 4 to 10 in the incident dated 29.5.2021.Pertinently, the allegations of assault by all applicants during theincident dated 29.11.2020 are not supported by medical evidence. Fromreading of the marriage card, which is placed on record, it is discerniblethat there are 2 high rank police officers in relation of respondent No.2from maternal side. The possibility of false implication of the applicantNos. 4 to 10 to generate pressure against applicant No.1 cannot be ruledout.13. The FIR alleges commission of offence punishable underSection 307, 498-A, 324, 323, 504 of IPC. However, minute reading ofFIR nowhere depict ingredients of Section 307 of IPC against applicants. {10} 1551.22 R crapln.odtEven as to ingredients of Section 498-A are concerned, there is nomaterial against applicant Nos. 4 to 10. Presence of applicant Nos. 4 to10 at the place of incident on 29.11.2020 appears to be improbable.14. Although falsity cannot be gone into in the applicationunder Section 482 of IPC on overall consideration of the material onrecord, we have reached to a definite conclusion that this is a case ofover implication of relatives, which requires us to exercise inherentpowers in favour of applicant Nos. 4 to 10. Consequently, we proceed topass the following order :- O R D E R[I]The Criminal Application is partly allowed;[II]FIR in Crime No. 174 of 2021, registered with Bhagya Nagar Police Station, District Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and consequential proceeding bearing RCC No. 940 of 2021 pending in the court of JMFC, at Nanded is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant Nos. 4 to 10.[III]The application stands rejected to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 to 3.[IV]R.C.C. No. 940 of 2021 to continue as against applicant Nos. 1 to 3 in accordance with law.[V]Criminal application stands disposed of. [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-
Arguments
{2} 1551.22 R crapln.odtR/o. Lahan Tq. Ardhapur,Dist. Nanded.8.Sow. Supriya W/o. Ganesh Chukewad,Aged 30 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Samartha Nagar, Nanded,Tq. And Dist. Nanded.9.Sow. Anita W/o. Sunil Varvante,Aged 37 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Lahan, Tq. Mukhed,Dist. Nanded.10.Sunil S/o. Maroti Varvante,Aged 37 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Lahan, tq. Mukhed,Dist. Nanded... Applicants( Ori. Accused Nos. 1 to 10)VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Police Station Officer,Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded.Dist. Nanded.2.Dr. Surekha W/o. Shailesh Gadalwad,Age 27 years, occ. Medical Practitioner,R/o. C/o. Ashok S/o. Narayan Pentewad,B-22, Snehanagar, B.& C. Colony,Punarvasan Building, Near Govt.Rest House, Nanded... Respondents.Mr. Ganesh P. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner.Mrs. R.P. Bharaswadkar, APP for State Mr. K.P. Rodge, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. {3} 1551.22 R crapln.odt RESERVED ON : 11TH OCTOBER, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 22ND OCTOBER, 2024JUDGMENT : [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] :-1.The applicants have approached this court under Section482 of Cr.P.C., thereby praying to quash and set aside the FIR in CrimeNo. 174 of 2021, registered with Bhagya Nagar Police Station, DistrictNanded for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504r/w. 34 of IPC and consequential proceeding bearing RCC No. 940 of2021 pending in the court of JMFC, at Nanded.2.The respondent No.2 lodged report dated 31.5.2021 againstthe applicants, alleging that on 12.7.2020, she got married with applicantNo.1 Shailesh as per the Hindu rites and customs. Within 15 days ofmarriage, her husband, mother in law, brother in law, started ill-treatment over the demand of household articles and cash amount of Rs.20 Lakhs. On 10.8.2020, her husband and mother in law, beat hear. Shewas required to take treatment for injuries. On 16.8.2020, she wasdriven out of the home on the ground that she is not expert in cooking.While she resided with her parents, she acquired skills of cooking andcalled her husband and mother in law to take her back. However, theyrefused saying that they do not like her. Her sister in law was instigatingthe ill-treatment given to her. On 29.11.2020, a meeting of relatives wasarranged. Her husband raised various complaints against her. The in-laws were saying that they wish to divorce her and used bad wordsagainst her parents. Hence, no settlement could be arrived. On15.5.2021, her husband, mother in law, relatives of mother in law abusedand assaulted her. On 21.4.2021, her brother had left her to the {4} 1551.22 R crapln.odtmatrimonial home. At that time, her husband, mother in law and fatherin law beat her and lodged false report dated 22.4.2021 against herbrother. On 29.5.2021, while she had been to wash room, her husband,brother in law, mother in law, father in law and other relatives followedand assaulted her. Her husband suffocated her by pressing neck andmade an attempt to kill her. Thereafter, she called her parents. Theyarrived alongwith police, took her to police station, Bhagyanagar. At thattime, in-laws gave threats to kill her brother. Her mother in law removedgold ornaments weighing 50 grams from her bag.3.The report led to registration of crime against in all 10accused persons. The investigation progressed and finally charge sheet isfiled against the applicants before Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nanded.4.Mr. S.B. Choudhari, learned advocate for the applicantsubmits that the applicants are falsely implicated in aforesaid crime. Themarriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnizedon 12.7.2020. However, after residing hardly for 15 to 20 days,respondent No.2 left for maternal home. She is better qualified than theapplicant N0.1 and wish to be independent from in-laws. Thereafter, on23.4.2021 she arrived alongwith her brother sister at matrimonial homeand raised assault on applicant No.1 and family members. Consequently,N.C. has been registered against them for the offences punishable underSections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC Similarly, on 16.5.2021, N.C. No. 182of 2021 is registered at the instance of applicant No.1. One more NCRNo. 153 of 21 has been registered on 21.4.2021 on the complaint ofapplicant No.1. He would submit that many close relatives of respondentNo.2 are serving in Police Department. Therefore, a cooked story is {5} 1551.22 R crapln.odtreported on 31.5.2021 by the respondent No.2 against the applicants.5.Mr. Chaudhari would further submit that applicant No.4resides at Pune in pursuance of his job. Applicant Nos. 5 to 9 areresiding separately at different places. They are unconcerned with familyaffairs of the applicant Nos. 1 to 3. They have been falsely implicatedwith intention to pressurize the applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Chaudhariwould further invite attention of this Court to the statement of witnessesrecorded during the course of investigation to contend that omnibusallegations are made against all family members of applicant No.1. Nooffence can be made out against them on the basis of FIR and contents ofcharge sheet. He would, therefore, urge to quash and set aside theimpugned FIR and consequential proceedings.6.Per contra, Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar learned APP for the Stateand Mr. K.P. Rodge, learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehementlyoppose the application contending that the FIR stipulates individual roleof every applicant in the commission of offence. The contents of FIR arecorroborated by the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161of Cr.P.C. The falsity of allegation cannot be a ground for quashment ofFIR and proceeding. It would be a matter of trial. Hence, no interferenceis warranted in exercise of inherent powers of this Court.7.We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf ofrespective parties. Record indicates that respondent No.2 married withapplicant No.1 on 12.7.2020. She resided at matrimonial home till16.8.2020. Thereafter, there are 2 N.C. cases registered againstrespondent No.2 on complaint given by applicant Nos. 1 and 2, {6} 1551.22 R crapln.odtrespectively. Those are under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, dated21.4.2021 and 16.5.2021, resepctively, wherein, allegations are madethat the respondent No.2 and her family members have assaulted theapplicant Nos. 1 to 3 and threatened them of filing false complaint. On24.5.2021, applicant No.3 made a complaint to Superintendent of Police,Nanded with regard to atrocities by daughter in law i.e. respondent No.2.The impugned FIR appears to have been lodged on 31.5.2021 i.e. within8 to 10 days from the date of N.C.s registered by applicant Nos. 1 to 3.8.It is evident that there is serious matrimonial disputebetween respondent No.2 and applicant Nos. 1 to 3. The documents onrecord show that there are allegations and counter allegations againsteach other. Apparently, applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were residing together atRadhika Nagar Taroda, Khurd, Nanded, whereas, applicant No.4 who isbrother of applicant No.1, was residing at Pune in pursuance of hisemployment. Applicant Nos. 5 to 10 are residing at different placeswithin Nanded District. However, they are not family members ofapplicant Nos. 1 to 4. In this background, if the contents of the FIR areconsidered, mainly there are allegations as against applicant Nos. 1 to 3,initially, as regards ill-treatment on account of demand of householdarticles and cash of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Even in the subsequent instancesdated 12.7.2020 and 10.8.2020 OR 16.8.2020 the role limited againstapplicant Nos. 1 to 3 is stipulated. However, in alleged incident dated29.5.2021, name of the applicants are implicated with attribution ofassault against respondent No.2. Pertinently, it was a period of COVIDpandemic. From the contents of FIR, it is not clear as to how and whyapplicant Nos. 4 to 10 had been to matrimonial home of respondentNo.2. The allegations against them are apparently fabricated and {7} 1551.22 R crapln.odtengineered so as to implicate them alongwith applicant Nos. 1 to 3.9.At this stage, reference can be given to the observationsmade by the Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta Vs. State ofJharkhand, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 wherein the apex courtobserved in para. 30, 32 and 34 as under :-“It is a matter of common knowledge thatunfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing inour country. All the courts in our country including thisCourt are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearlydemonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of alarge number of people of the society.32. 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 whichare not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. Atthe same time, rapid increase in the number of genuinecases of dowry harassment are also a matter of seriousconcern. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaintthe implications and consequences are not properlyvisualized by the complainant that such complaint can leadto insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to thecomplainant, accused and his close relations.”10.In yet another case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Biharreported in (2022)6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court after taking stock ofvarious decisions, rendered by the supreme Court in the subject matter,observed in para. 17 as under.“The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that