High Court

Legal Reasoning

11908.2023APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1908 OF 20231.Mina Shankar Inkar Age : 41 years, Occ : Household, R/o Aher Chincholi, Tal. Beed, Dist. Beed. 2.Rajashri W/o Bharat BhandareAge : 39 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vadgaonsheri, Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed. 3.Ritik Shankar InkarAge : 19 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Aher Chincholi, Tal. Beed, Dist. Beed. 4.Bharat S/o Dadarao BhandareAge : 45 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vadgaonsheri, Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed. ..APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the In-Charge Investigation Officer, City Police Station, Beed, Tal. Beed, Dist. Beed. 2.Rucha W/o Ramakant DolasAge : 32 years, Occ : Household, R/o at present – C/o Vishnu Kambale, Sahyog Nagar, Purv Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed. ..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicants : Mr. S.R. Andhale APP for Respondent- State : Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr.Suhas R. Shirsat … 21908.2023APPLN.odtCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The present application is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash FIR No. 33 of2023, registered against the applicants and three others with City PoliceStation Beed, Dist.Beed on 14.02.2023, for the offences punishableunder Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code (IPC)and Regular Criminal Case No.320/2023 pending onthe file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. 2.The applicant nos.1 and 2 are sisters. The applicant no.3 isson of applicant no.1. The applicant no.4 is husband of applicant no.2.3.The FIR is lodged by the respondent no.2, who is wife ofbrother of the applicant nos.1 and 2. The principal allegations in theFIR are against the husband and parents-in-law. However, the presentapplicants are also arrayed as accused nos.4 to 7 in the matter. Theallegations in the FIR against the applicant nos.1 and 2 are that after ashort while of around six months after marriage, the applicant nos.1 31908.2023APPLN.odtand 2 used to taunt the respondent no.2 saying that she was not goodlooking, she did not know how to do household work properly, and shedid not bring adequate dowry at the time of marriage. Apart from this,there is an allegation against applicant no.1, her son and applicant no.3that they along with the husband and parents-in-law of respondentno.2 that they had a quarrel with respondent no.2 on 10.01.2023 andthey had expelled the respondent no.2 from her matrimonial homestating that unless she brings amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, she will not betaken back in the matrimonial house.4.It is appearing from the contents of FIR that there wasmatrimonial discord between the respondent no.2 and her husband.The FIR indicates that three meetings were held between the familymembers of both sides for reconciliation of the matrimonial issuebetween the respondent no.2 and her husband. The respondent no.2also has a girl child from the wedlock, who is born somewhere inJanuary or February 2021, as per the contents of the FIR.5.It will be pertinent to mention here that the respondentno.2 had filed a domestic violence case against her husband in whichallegations of ill-treatment and harassment have been levelled.However, all these allegations are against the husband and parents-in- 41908.2023APPLN.odtlaw. There is no allegation of misbehaviour or harassment or illtrementof any other nature whatsoever in the domestic violence case againstthe present applicants. The domestic violence case was filed on02.09.2021 and was subsequently withdrawn on 30.08.2022.6.As regards the applicant no.4, there is absolutely noallegation against him in the FIR. Likewise, there is no allegationagainst him in the domestic violence case as well. He is unnecessarilyarrayed as an accused, although his name does not even appear once inthe FIR.7.As regards the applicant no.2, she is sister of husband ofrespondent no.2. There is a generic allegation against her that after aperiod of around six months after the marriage, she and her sister-theapplicant no.1 would illtreat the respondent no.2 whenever they usedto visit their parental house, i.e. the matrimonial house of respondentno.2. The ill-treatment was allegedly meted out pointing to the looks ofthe respondent no.2 and her inability to do household work properly.The respondent no.2 has also stated that the applicant no.2 and hersister- applicant no.1 also used to say that she did not bring adequatedowry with her at the time of marriage. However, all these allegationsare completely vague and lacking in all material particulars. The 51908.2023APPLN.odttentative period of the allegations is also not mentioned. This assumesgreater significance since there is no allegation against her in thedomestic violence case.8.As regards the applicant nos.1 and 3, as pointed out above,there is a general allegation against the applicant no.1 regardingtaunting the respondent no.2 on the count that she was not goodlooking and did not do household work properly, as also relating toinadequate dowry that she had brought with her. The respondent no.2has levelled another allegation stating that on 10.01.2023 the husbandand parents-in-law as also the applicant nos.1 and 3 had a quarrel withher in relation to their demand for Rs.5,00,000/-. She states that thesaid five persons had abused and beaten her and forcibly evicted herfrom the matrimonial house, asking her to bring amount ofRs.5,00,000/-.9.We find from the contents of the FIR that the principalgrievance of the respondent no.2 is against her husband. There is amatrimonial discord between respondent no.2 and her husband. Therespondent no.2 also alleges and attributes wrong to her parents-in-law. A perusal of pleadings in the domestic violence case willdemonstrate that there is no allegation against the applicant no.1 61908.2023APPLN.odtregarding any illtreatment or misbehaviour. However, in the FIR, shehas attributed general allegations regarding illtreatment andmisbehaviour to the applicant no.1. This indicates attempt to implicatethe applicant no.1 in the matter. It appears that with this motive, thenames of applicant no.1 and her son applicant no.3 are mentionedwhile referring to alleged incident dated 10.01.2023. It will bepertinent to mention here that admittedly applicant nos.1 and 3 are notresiding with the respondent no.2 and her husband. It will also bepertinent to mention that in the domestic violence case, the allegationwith respect to demand for dowry is that the in-laws had asked for asum of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid to the society in which the husbandwas employed as a teacher. However, in the FIR, the allegation is thatall the while a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded in order to enablethe husband of respondent no.2 to start his business. There is a clearcontradiction in the two allegations. The contradictions cannot bereconciled in as much as in one place, it is stated that amount wassought for securing permanent employment and at other place, it issaid that dowry was sought for starting business. Apart from this, theamount mentioned in both the documents is also different. Theallegations against the applicant nos.1 and 3 will have to be taken witha pinch of salt. The contents of FIR cannot be read in isolation. Theywill have to be read in conjunction with other material on record. The 71908.2023APPLN.odtallegations in totality clearly indicate an attempt of over implication onthe part of the respondent no.2. The contents of FIR with respect toapplicant nos.1 and 3 cannot be read in isolation. They will have to beread in totality. The allegations in FIR clearly indicate an attempt on thepart of respondent no.2 to implicate two sisters of her husband in thematter. The tendency of estranged wives to implicate family membersand near relations of husband in offences relating to Section 498-A areon rise. All Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India andthis Court has repeatedly taken notice of this. The present case alsoappears to be one of such nature. It is pertinent to mention here thatthe marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized on 01.11.2019. Sheclaims that for a period of around six months things were normal andthereafter the alleged harassment started. From 10.01.2023, she wasadmittedly residing at her parental house. There have been threemeetings for resolving the marital discord between respondent no.2and her husband. Having regard to the entire facts of the case, we findthat the allegations against applicant nos.1 and 3 are also notconfidence inspiring. We are of the opinion that the allegations in theFIR are not sufficient to continue criminal prosecution against theapplicant nos.1 and 3 as well. We deem it appropriate to quashprosecution against applicant nos.1 and 3 in exercise of our inherentpowers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and in 81908.2023APPLN.odtorder to prevent abuse of the legal process. Hence the order :-ORDER (i)The application is allowed.(ii) FIR No. 33 of 2023, registered against the applicants and threeothers with City Police Station Beed, Dist.Beed on 14.02.2023, for theoffences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)and Regular Criminal CaseNo.320/2023 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Beed are hereby quashed against applicant no.1-Mina ShankarInkar, applicant no.2-Rajashri W/o Bharat Bhandare, applicant no.3 -Ritik Shankar Inkar and applicant no.4 - Bharat S/o Dadarao Bhandare.[ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/