High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) appln-1226-2021 (1).odt(This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes order dated 16.10.2024.)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1226 OF 20211.Amol S/o Balu Sarode, (Husband of complainant)Age: 25 years, Occup.:,R/o: Mahankal Wadgaon,Tq: Shrirampur, Dist: Ahmednagar.2.Balu S/o Ambadas Sarode, (Father-in-law of complainant)Age: 49 years, Occup: Majuri,R/o: Mahankal Wadgaon,Tq: Shrirampur, Dist: Ahmednagar.3.Latabai W/o Balu Sarode, (Mother-in-Law of complainant)Age: 48 years, Occup: Majuri,R/o: Mahankal Wadgaon,Tq: Shrirampur, Dist: Ahmednagar.4.Gajanan S/o Balu Sarode, (Brother-in-Law of complainant)Age: 22 years, Occup: MajuriR/o: Mahankal Wadgaon,Tq: Shrirampur, Dist: Ahmednagar.5.Mangal W/o Bhausaheb Shedge,(sister-in-law of complainant)Age: 27 years, Occup: Majuri,R/o: Wangi, Tq: Shrirampur,Dist: Ahmednagar.6.Bhausaheb S/o Tukaram Shedge, (Husband of applicant no.5)Age: 29 years, Occup: Majuri,R/o: Wangi, Tq: Shrirampur,Dist: Ahmednagar...ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough: The Police Inspector, Shilegaon Police Station, Gangapur, Tal. Gangapur, District: Aurangabad.2.Mrs Vaishali W/o Amol Sarode,Through: Ganpath Ramaji Vairal Age: 22 years, Occup. Housewife, R/o: Varkhed, Tq: Gangapur,Dist: Aurangbad...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
(2) appln-1226-2021 (1).odt …Mr. A. B. Chormal, Advocate for the Applicants.Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, APP for Respondent-State..Mr. G. J. Karne, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 03rd OCTOBER, 2024.ORDER (Per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J):-1.The applicants have approached this Court under Section482 of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby praying to quash andset aside FIR in Crime No.102/2021 dated 06.05.2021 registeredwith Shilegaon Police Station, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad foroffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of this application,charge-sheet came to be filed before learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class at Gangapur. Consequently, applicants have addedprayer to quash and set aside charge-sheet and consequentialcriminal proceeding pending before Judicial Magistrate First Classat Gangapur.2.The respondent no.2 herein lodged FIR dated 06.05.2021alleging that on 14.02.2020 she has been married with applicantno.1. After marriage she started residing at matrimonial home.She was treated well for initial six months. Later on, in-lawsraised demand of Rs.10,00,000/- to release land that has beenmortgaged and also to secure employment for her husband. Duringher visit to maternal home in festival season, she gave idea of theill-treatment given to her. However, her parents advised her tobear it for some time. It is alleged that after some days, shestarted residing at Wangi alongwith her husband and worked inthe field of one Gaikwad. The sister-in-law Mangal Shedge wasresiding in that village alongwith her husband. She used to visit (3) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtthe field where they were working and instigate husband to raisedemand of money from parents of informant. In pursuance of suchinstigation, her husband used to beat her. Meanwhile, sheconceived pregnancy, but it was terminated. Thereafter, she cameback to village Mahakal Vadgaon alongwith her husband.However, her in-laws continued ill-treatment towards her inpursuance of demand. Her parents made an attempt ofconciliation. However, there was no change in behaviour of in-laws. On 30.04.2021, she was assaulted in pursuance of demand byher husband, then dropped her at village Varkhed on 02.05.2021.Even, when she was at maternal home, her husband abused herand her mother then left saying that unless amount is paid, he willnot take her back. On 03.05.2021 again her parents made anattempt of conciliation, but in-laws did not allow her to reside atmatrimonial home in pursuance of demand and continued physicaland mental ill-treatment to her. In pursuance of aforesaidinformation, offence has been registered against all the applicants.3.On 30.06.2021, on the request of the learned Advocateappearing for the applicants, the application to the extent ofapplicant no.1-Amol Balu Sarode (husband of respondent no.2) hasbeen dismissed as withdrawn.4.Mr. Chormal, learned Advocate appearing for the applicantssubmits that applicants have been falsely implicated in aforesaidcrime. The respondent no.2 hardly resided at sharedaccommodation alongwith other applicants. The grievance ofrespondent no.2 appears to be only against her husband. However,applicant nos.2 to 6 have been falsely implicated. Mr. Chormalwould invite attention of this Court to the legal notice dated04.06.2021 issued by applicant no.1 to respondent no.2 for (4) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtrestitution of conjugal rights. He would further submit thatrespondent no.2 hardly resided alongwith her in-laws. She residedat village Wangi alongwith her husband in the field of oneGaikwad. In this background, on the basis of omnibus allegations,no case for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Codecan be made out against applicants. He would, therefore, urge toquash and set aside FIR and consequential criminal proceedingagainst the applicants.5.Per contra, Mrs. Bharaswadkar, learned APP appearing forthe respondent-State and Mr. Karne, learned Advocate appearingfor respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer in theapplication contending that contents of the FIR and statements ofwitnesses recorded during the course of investigation makes outsufficient case for trial and no interference is required in exercise ofinherent powers of this Court.6.We have considered submissions advanced on behalf oflearned Advocates appearing for respective parties. We haveminutely gone through the contents of FIR and statements ofwitnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Evidently, respondent no.2married on 14.02.2020 with applicant no.1. Thereafter, she wastreated well for six months. Admittedly, all the family membershad worked at Ashok Nagar Sugar Factory for harvestingsugarcane. Thereafter, respondent no.2 alongwith her husbandresided in the field of one Gaikwad at village Wangi. All thesecircumstances clearly shows that respondent no.2 never residedwith her in-laws in shared accommodation. Perusal of FIR wouldshow that allegations against all the applicants are omnibus. Nospecification as regards to the ill-treatment or overtact at thehands of any applicant is narrated. The contents of the FIR are (5) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtbereft of necessary particulars to make out any offence against theapplicants.7.At this stage, reference can be given to the observationsmade by the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta andAnother and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another1,wherein the Apex Court observed in paragraph nos.30, 32 and 34as under :-“30.It is a matter of common knowledge thatunfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasingin our 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.”8.In yet another judgment in case of Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others2, theSupreme Court after taking stock of various earlier decisions in thesubject matter, observed in paragraph no.17 as under:“17.The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstratethat this court has at numerous instances expressed concernover the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increasedtendency of implicating relatives of the husband inmatrimonial disputes, without analysing the long termramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the1(2010) 7 SCC 667.2(2022) 6 SCC 599. (6) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtaccused. It is further manifest from the said judgments thatfalse implication by way of general omnibus allegationsmade in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left uncheckedwould result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, thiscourt by way of its judgments has warned the courts fromproceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husbandwhen no prima facie case is made out against them.” 9.Similarly, in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Unionof India and others3, the Supreme Court observed in paragraphno.19 as under :-“19.The object of the provision is prevention of the dowrymeance. But as has been rightly contended by the petitionermany instances have come to light where the complaints arenot bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In suchcases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe outthe ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimesadverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken toprevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merelybecause the provision is constitutional and intra vires, doesnot give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personalvendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, becomenecessary for the legislature to find out ways how themakers of frivolous complaints or allegations can beappropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to takecare of the situation within the existing frame work. Asnoted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace.But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can beunleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shieldand not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too oftenas 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 inthe matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of everylegal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty andprotect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by thepetitioner that the investigating agencies and the courtsstart with the presumption that the accused persons areguilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. Thisis too wide available and generalized statement. Certain3(2005) 6 SCC 281. (7) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtstatutory presumption are drawn which again arereputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigatingagencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of abloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocentperson is not made to suffer on account of unfounded,baseless and malicious allegations. It is equallyindisputable that in many cases no direct evidence isavailable and the courts have to act on circumstantialevidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid downrelating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.”10.In light of the legal position explained in aforesaid judgment,we have also considered statements of witnesses cited in thecharge-sheet. On perusal we find that statements of parents,grandmother and paternal aunt are recorded. All the statementsare of stereotype and omnibus in nature. Even from thosestatements no case can be made out against applicant nos.2 to 6 tobring home ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.The stipulations in the FIR and statements of witnesses wouldshow that ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 323,504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code are only against applicant no.1.In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view thatcontinuation of prosecution against applicant nos.2 to 6 would beabuse of process of law. Hence, we deem it appropriate to invokeour inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal ProcedureCode and quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceeding asagainst applicant nos.2 to 6. Consequently, we proceed to passfollowing order:ORDERa.Criminal Application is partly allowed.b.The FIR in Crime No.102/2021 dated 06.05.2021 registeredwith Shilegaon Police Station, Tal. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad foroffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code as well as consequential criminal proceeding (8) appln-1226-2021 (1).odtpending before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gangapur, ishereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicant nos.2 to 6.c.Criminal Application to the extent of applicant no.1 isrejected and criminal proceeding pending before JudicialMagistrate First Class at Gangapur to continue against applicantno.1.d.Criminal Application is disposed of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/October-2024