High Court
Facts
{1} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2258 OF 20231.Awej Ahmed Shaikh (Husband)Age 31 years, Occ. Labour Work,R/o. Mali Galli, Near Masjit,Latur.2.Shafika w/o. Ahmed Shaikh (mother in law)Age 64 years, occ. Household,R/o. Arafat Chowk, Narkat Nagar, Latur.3.Ahemad Rasul Shaikh (father in law),Age 70 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Arafat Chowk, Barkat Nagar, Latur.4.Altmas s/o. Ahemad Shaikh (brother in law)Age 36 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Labour Colony, Near Blind School, Latur.5.Arshad s/o. Ahemad shaikh (brother in law),Age 25 years, Occ. Education,R/o. Arafat Chowk, Barkat Nagar, Latur.6. Afan s/o. Ahemad Shaikh (brother in law)Age 22 years, Occ. Education,R/o. Arafat Chowk, Barkat Nagar, Latur.7.Marium w/o. Altmas Shaikh (wife of brother in law)Age 36 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Labour Colony, near Blind School, Latur... APPLICANTS.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtrathrough Police inspector,Gandhi Chowk Police Station,Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
Legal Reasoning
{7} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtunchecked 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.”13.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 cannotbe 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 too {8} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtwide 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.”14.Keeping in mind aforesaid observations of the SupremeCourt of India, particularly, in the light of allegations in the FIR andmaterial in charge sheet, we find that none of the ingredients of section498-A would be attracted against applicant Nos. 3 to 7. The possibility oftheir false implication also can not be ruled out. The applicant No.3 is thefather in law of respondent No.2. However, there is absolutely nomaterial to bring home his complicity in the commission of offence.Same is the case as regards applicant Nos. 4 to 6, who are brothers in lawand applicant No.7 who is wife of applicant No.4. The contents of FIRmakes omnibus reference of their names in the concluding part with theallegation that they were equally responsible for the acts committed byhusband and mother in law. However, such statement would not besufficient to make even a prima facie case against applicant Nos. 3 to 7.In that view of the matter, we are of the firm view that this is a fit case toexercise our inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash andset aside the FIR and consequential criminal proceeding as againstapplicant Nos. 3 to 7. Hence, we pass the following order :-O R D E R[i]The criminal application is partly allowed; {9} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odt[ii]FIR in crime No. 201 of 2022 dated 28.4.2022 registeredwith Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, Dist, Latur for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC andconsequential criminal proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 1212 of 2022pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur is hereby quashed and setaside as against applicant Nos. 3 to 7.[iii]The application stands disposed of as withdrawn to theextent of applicant No. 1 and 2. The proceeding in R.C.C. No. 1212 of2022 to continue against them.[iii]Mr. A.U. Peche, learned advocate is appointed by this Courtto represent respondent No.2, his remuneration is quantified at Rs.7000/- to be paid through Maharashtra Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.[iv]Criminal application is disposed of.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-
Arguments
{2} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odt2.Minaj Begum w/o. Awej Shaikh,Age 28 years, Occ. Service,R/o. In front of Govt. Hospital,Bole Galli, Patel chowk,Gandhi Chowk, Latur,Tq. And Dist. Latur... RESPONDENTS.Mr. Yogesh R. Shinde, Advocate h/f. Mr. H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for applicants.Mr. A.V. Lavte, APP for respondent State.Mr. A.U. Peche, Advocate for respondent No.2. (appointed) CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2024. JUDGMENT [ 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 dated28.4.2022, in Crime No. 201 of 2022 registered with Gandhi Chowkpolice station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and consequential criminal proceeding in RCCNo. 1212 of 2022 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.2.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26.7.2023before this Court, learned advocate appearing for the applicant withdrewthe application to the extent of applicant No.1 husband. Further, duringthe course of today’s hearing, learned advocate for the applicant, oninstructions, withdrew the application to the extent of applicant No. 2and requested to consider the prayer in the application to the extent of {3} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtapplicant Nos. 3 to 7.3.Respondent No.2 reported to Police Station, Gandhi Chowkthat on 19.1.2020, she married with applicant No.1 Awej Ahmed Shaikhas per the Muslim rites and customs. Her parents had gifted Rs. 1 Lakhalongwith gold and silver ornaments. She resided in her matrimonialhome, she was treated well for initial period of 2 months. Thereafter, shewas being ill-treated for trifle reasons. On 15.11.2020, her mother in lawreprimanded her on account of household work. The informant lost herconsciousness. When she was taken to hospital, it was revealed that shewas carrying pregnancy. On 17.11.2020 her husband, mother in law,suspected her character and raised questions regarding her earlypregnancy. When she narrated the incident to her brother, her parentsand brother requested in-laws, not to torture her. However, they wereinsisting to terminate the pregnancy. Thereafter, when concilation wasattempted, in-laws raised demand of Rs. 3 Lakhs for purchase of flat,otherwise, gave threat to perform second marriage of her husband. On28.8.2021, she gave birth to the girl – Rida. In-laws never visited to seeher. Consequently, she alleges that the in-laws (applicants) are guilty ofoffence as charged.4.The investigation progressed in pursuance of aforesaidreport. Finally, charge sheet has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Laturin RCC /No. 1212 of 2022.5.Mr. Yogesh R. Shinde, learned advocate appearing for theapplicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated inaforesaid crime. The applicant Nos. 4 to 7 have no concern with the {4} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtfamily affairs of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2. However, they have beenimplicated in aforesaid crime on the basis of omnibus and palpably falsestatement. He would further submit that on the basis of vague andomnibus statements in the FIR, no offence can be made out against theapplicants. By inviting attention of this court to the contents of the FIRand statement of witnesses in the charge sheet, he would submit thatstereo type version of the incident is carried forward, which is withoutsubstance. The FIR is lodged in the year 2022, whereas, respondentNo.2 is residing at her maternal home since long i.e. 1.1.2021. therefore,he urges to allow the application and quash and set aside the FIR andconsequential criminal proceeding against the applicant Nos. 3 to 7.6.Per contra, Mr. A.V. Lavte, learned APP and learned advocateMr. A.U. Peche appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently oppose theprayer in the application, contending that the FIR specifically stipulatesill-treatment in pursuance of demand of money at the hands of in-laws.The applicants were residing in shared accommodation alongwithrespondent No.2 and all of them have mentally tortured her. Therefore,they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence as charged. They wouldalso urge that now the charge sheet is filed which contains triablematerial. Hence, this is a fit case for decision on trial.7.We have considered the submissions advanced by thelearned advocates appearing for respective parties. We have minutelyconsidered the FIR and material in the charge sheet i.e. statements ofwitnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course ofinvestigation. Apparently, the marriage between respondent No.2 andapplicant No.1 was solemnized on 19.1.2020. The respondent No.2 {5} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtalleges that she was treated well for initial two months. Thereafter, shewas ill-treated for trifle reasons by her mother in law. The specificnarration of incident dated 15.11.2020 and 17.11.2020 is given.However, allegations are restricted only against applicant Nos. 1 and 2i.e. husband and mother in law. The allegation is made that amount ofRs. 3 Lakh was demanded for purchase of flat by husband and his familymembers. However, no specifications of such demands are stipulated.From entire FIR, no specific averments is discernible against applicantNos. 3 to 7 that would constitute an offence. The record shows thatrespondent No.2 had filed proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.against husband seeking maintenance. She specifically states that from1.1.2021, she is residing at parental home since respondent husbandrefused to cohabit with her. It clarifies that respondent No.2 has residedin matrimonial home, hardly for a period of 3 months after marriage.Petition No. E-179 of 2021 appears to have been filed before the Familycourt at Latur on 5.8.2021, whereas, the FIR is lodged on 28.4.2022. Allthese circumstances clearly depict that applicant No.3 to 7 are implicatedin the crime only with intention to pressurize the applicant No.1.8.We have perused the contents of the charge sheet,particularly, the statement of witness recorded during the course ofinvestigation. However, it can be observed that all statement of witnessesare stereotype and omnibus and bereft to make out a specific case againstapplicant Nos. 3 to 7.9.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 court {6} 2258.23 CRAPLN (1).odtobserved 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.”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 left