High Court
Facts
{1} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1865 OF 20241. Akshay Arun Varhade,Age 33 years, Occ. Job. (Husband)2.Jayashri Arun Varhade,age 59 years, Occ. Household (mother in law)3.Arun Govind Varhade, (father in law)Age 62 years, Occ. Nil.Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 R/o. Bedge Galli, Naldurg,Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad,At present Plot NO. 102, Harpade Building,B Side, Amruta College, Jaibhavani Mandir,Phursungi, Pune.4.Archana Ramkrishna Bhange, (Sister in law),Age 35 years, Occ. Household,5.Ramkrishna Dnyaneshwar Bhange, (Brother in law)Age 40 years, Occ. Business,Applicant Nos. 4 and 5, R/o. 65 A,Navi Peth, Near Laxmi Tokij,Solapur North, Solapur.6.Pooja Arun Varhade @ (Sister in law)Pooja Ashish Godase,Age 31 years, Occ. Household,7.Ashish Dattatraya Godase,(brother in law)Age 33 years, Occ. BusinessApplicant Nos. 6 and 7 R/o. 158,Raviwar Peth, Gujarwasti Shelgi Road,New DAV College, Solapur North,Solapur... APPLICANTS.
Legal Reasoning
{6} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtCourt 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.”12.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 thatthis 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. {7} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odt13.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 the petitionermany instances have come to light where the complaints are notbonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such casesacquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominysuffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse mediacoverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is whatremedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision isconstitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence tounscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleashharassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislatureto find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints orallegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courtshave to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. Asnoted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But bymisuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed.The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins'weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank assistanceand protection may not be available when the actual "wolf"appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courtscasually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths andcruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of everylegal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect theinnocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. Itis strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigatingagencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accusedpersons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth.This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certainstatutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is tobe noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts isthat of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effortto see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of {8} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtunfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equallyindisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available andthe courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealingwith such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantialevidence has to be kept in view.”14.Keeping in mind aforesaid observations, we find that this is afit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.PC. And quashand set aside the proceeding as against applicant Nos. 4 to 7, since thecontents of FIR and charge sheet appear to be bereft to make out anyoffence against them. Similarly, possibility of their false implicationbased on such omnibus allegations is discernible from the record. We,therefore, feel it absolutely necessary to quash and set aside the FIR andcriminal proceeding against applicant Nos. 4 to 7 in exercise of inherentpowers to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice. Hence, we pass the following order.O R D E R[i]Criminal application is partly allowed;[ii]Charge sheet No. 200 of 2023 dated 2.11.2023 filed beforelearned JMFC, Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad and consequential criminalproceeding bearing RCC No. 380 of 2023 for the offence under Sections498-A. 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside tothe extent of applicants Nos. 4 to 7. [iii]The application stands disposed of.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-
Arguments
{2} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtrathrough Police Inspector, Tuljapur,Police Station, Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.2.Aishwarya Akshay Varhade,age 25 years, Occ. Job.R/o. Vyas Nagar Naldurg, Tal. Tuljapur,Dist. Osmanabad at present House No.18,HUDCO, Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad... RESPONDENTS.Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for applicants.Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent State.Mr. V.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2024. JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] :-1.The applicants have approached this court under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and setaside the charge sheet No. 200 of 2023 dated 2.11.2023 as well ascriminal proceeding in RCC No. 380 of 2023 pending before JMFC, Laturfor the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34of IPC.2.When this application was placed for consideration beforethis Court on 7.5.2024, it has been withdrawn so far as applicant Nos. 1to 3. Consequently, same is dismissed to that extent.3.Mr. Shaikh Asraf Patel, learned advocate appearing for theapplicants restricted his submissions to the extent of applicant Nos. 4 to7. {3} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odt4.Respondent No.2- Aishwarya lodged report dated 21.8.2023with Police Station, Tuljapur dist. Dharashiv alleging that on 24.12.2021she married with Akshay Arun Varhade as per Hindu rites and customs.On 27.12.2021, she want to Pune and resided with her husband, motherin law, father in law in a flat at Harpade Building, Phursungi, Pune till30.3.2022. During her stay at Pune she was teased and mentallytortured. Her husband and father in law were instigating aforesaid actsof the mother in law. Thereafter, a demand was made for Rs. 6 Lakhsfrom her parents under the pretext that business loan of Rs. 6 Lakhstaken by her husband is to be cleared. The father in law was in habit ofdrinking liquor and used to demand money for that purpose. It is furtheralleged that the sister in law Archana, her husband Vishal, who areresides at Solapur used to visit Pune and torture her in pursuance ofdemand of Rs. 6 Lakhs. Similarly, another sister in law – Puja and herhusband Ashish Godse used to assault her for aforesaid reason. On thebasis of aforesaid allegations Crime NO. 349 of 2023 came to beregistered with police Station Tuljapur against in all 7 accused personsfor the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34of IPC.5.After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filedbearing No. 200 of 2023 in the court of JMFC, Tuljapur. Accordingly,RCC No. 380 of 2023 has been registered and same is pending for trial.6.Mr. Shaikh Arshad Patel, learned advocate appearing for theapplicants vehemently submits that the applicant Nos. 4 to 7 areunconcerned with the family affairs of applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Theapplicant Nos. 4 and 5 are residing at Solapur. Applicant No.4 is married {4} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtsister in law of respondent No.2, whereas, applicant No.4 is husbandapplicant No.4. They have no occasion to interfere in the family affairs ofapplicant Nos. 1 to 3. Same is the case with applicant Nos. 6 and 7.Respondent NO.2 may have her grievance against her husband, however,applicant Nos. 4 to 7 have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime.He would, therefore, urge to quash and set aside the FIR, the chargesheet and consequential criminal proceeding against applicant Nos. 4 to7.7.By inviting attention of this court to the contents of chargesheet he would submit that the charge sheet is based on statements oftwo witnesses which are omnibus and stereo-type. He would, thereforeurge to quash and set aside the FIR and consequential criminalproceeding.8.Per contra, Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar, learned APP and Mr. V.B.Deshmukh, learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently opposesthe prayers in the application. They would submit that respondent No.2who is an educated lady, has been harassed by her in-laws since the dateof marriage and driven out of home on 15.6.2015 and forced to reside ather parental home. They would urge to reject the application as there istriable material in charge sheet.9.We have considered the submissions advanced by learnedadvocates for respective parties. We have perused the contents of the FIRand charge sheet. Apparently, respondent No.2 married with applicantNo.1 on 24.12.2021. Thereafter, she resided at Pune alongwith herhusband, mother in law and father in law. She makes allegation ofharassment and ill-treatment against them till 30.3.2020. She also statesthat demand of rs. 6 Lakhs was raised from her parents to clear the {5} 1865.24 R.CRAPLN.odtbusiness loan of her husband. So far as applicant Nos. 4 to 7 areconcerned, they are residing separately. The applicant Nos. 4 and 6 aremarried sisters in law of respondent No.2 whereas, applicant Nos. 5 and7 are their husbands. They reside at Solapur. However, they have beenimplicated with allegation that they visited the matrimonial home ofrespondent No.2 at Pune and harassed or assaulted respondent No.2 inpursuance of demand of Rs. 6 Lakhs. Apparently, said statements areomnibus, vague and without necessary particulars to find out thecomplicity of applicant Nos. 4 to 7 in commission of crime.10.If married sisters in law of respondent No.2 were residing atsolapur, it would be difficult to believe that they, alongwith their husbandwould go to Pune and raise assault against respondent No.2, that too inpursuance of demand of money for clearing loan of husband ofrespondent No.2. Presently, Respondent No.2 is residing with herparents. Her matrimonial life and cohabitation with husband appears tobe for a very short period. She herself is a software engineer. If therewould have been ill-treatement at the hands of applicant Nos. 4 to 7, shecould have easily narrated particulars of such ill-treatement, instead ofmaking omnibus allegations regarding their participation in commissionof offence.11.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 thus:-“It is a matter of common knowledge thatunfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing inour counrty. All the courts in our country including this