High Court
Legal Reasoning
(5) appln-2266-2023.odt34. 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.”9.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 theaccused. 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.”10.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 be2(2022) 6 SCC 599.3(2005) 6 SCC 281. (6) appln-2266-2023.odtappropriately 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. Certainstatutory 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.”11.Keeping in mind aforesaid observations, we find thatrespondent no.2 was residing at Kargaon, Dist. Jalgaon inpursuance of her job. The applicant nos.1 to 5 are resident ofGevrai, Dist. Beed. Therefore, respondent no.2 hardly resided inshared accommodation with her in-laws. As observed in aforesaidparagraphs, the allegations in the FIR nowhere stipulates thatthere was any agreement of dowry at the time of marriage. Socalled demand of Rs.3,00,000/- is allegedly raised for the purchaseof plot after marriage. Except this stipulation, there is nothing inthe FIR that would constitute ingredients of offence under Section498-A of the Indian Penal Code or offences under Sections 3 and 4 (7) appln-2266-2023.odtof the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even ingredients of offences underSections 323, 504 and 506 are not discernible from the contents ofFIR. In absence of requisite stipulations in the FIR to constitutecognizable offence, neither FIR could have been registered norprosecution against accused persons would be permissible. On overview of the matter, we find that this is a fit case to exercisejurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code andquash impugned FIR and consequential proceeding. Hence, weproceed to pass following order:ORDERa.Criminal Application is allowed.b.The FIR in Crime No.175/2023 dated 09.05.2023 registeredwith Badnapur Police Station, Tal. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna foroffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 as well as consequential criminal proceeding inpursuance of charge-sheet bearing no.125/2023 filed before JudicialMagistrate First Class, Badnapur are hereby quashed and setaside.c.Criminal Application is disposed of.d.Since Mr. S. R. Andhale, learned Advocate is appointedthrough legal aid to represent respondent no.2, the Secretary, HighCourt Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad Bench do paythe fees of the appointed counsel for respondent no.2 as perschedule.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/September-2024
Arguments
(1) appln-2266-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2266 OF 20231.Rahul Bhaurao suryawanshi,Age: 35 years, Occu: Advocate,R/o: Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist.Beed.(Husband)2.Jijabai Bhaurao Suryawanshi,Age: 53 years, Occu: Housewife,R/o: Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed.(Mother-in-law)3.Bhaurao Dadarao Suryawanshi,Age: 63 years, Occu: Agri.,R/o: Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed. (Father-in-law)4.Gorakh Bhaurao Suryawanshi,Age: 33 years, Occu:R/o: Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed.(Brother-in-law)5.Avinash Bhaurao Suryawanshi,Age: 34 years, Occu:R/o: Gevrai, Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed.(Brother-in-law)...ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough, In-charge of Police Inspector, Badnapur Police Station,Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna.2.Chaya W/o Rahul Suryawanshi,Age: 42 years, Occup.: Service (Professor), C/o: Kisan Dnyanoday Mandal, Gudhe Sanchalit Nanasaheb, Dr. Uttamrao Mahajan, Shikshan Shashtra Mahavidyalaya, Kargaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon...Respondents …Mr. S. R. Sapkal, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1.Mr. S. R. Andhale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed). … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 20th SEPTEMBER, 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 and (2) appln-2266-2023.odtset aside FIR in Crime No.175/2023 dated 09.05.2023 registeredwith Badnapur Police Station, Tal. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna foroffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 as well as consequential criminal proceeding inpursuance of charge-sheet bearing no.125/2023 filed before JudicialMagistrate First Class, Badnapur.2.The respondent no.2 filed report to the police station allegingthat on 13.09.2020 she married with applicant no.1-RahulSuryawanshi as per Hindu rites and customs. She was treatedwell for initial period of four months. However, thereafter accusedpersons ill-treated her for trifle reasons. They doubted hercharacter and also raised demand of Rs.3,00,000/- for purchase ofplot. Due to ill-treatment, she went to her maternal home atKinhola and informed parents about ill-treatment. Her parentsattempted convocation with in laws. However, there was nochange in their behaviour. Consequently, she reports complaintagainst in-laws. 3.On the basis of aforesaid information, Crime No.175/2023came to be registered with Badnapur Police Station. Theinvestigation progressed. Finally charge-sheet has been filed in theCourt of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnapur against in allfive accused persons for aforesaid offences.4.Mr. Sapkal, learned Advocate appearing for applicantssubmits that applicants have been falsely implicated in aforesaidcrime. The allegations in the FIR are omnibus, unspecific and doesnot reveal ingredients of offences as alleged. He would submit thatrespondent no.2 voluntarily left matrimonial home. The applicantno.1 issued a legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights to (3) appln-2266-2023.odtrespondent no.2 in the month of February 2023. After service ofnotice, FIR has been lodged on 09.05.2023 only with intention tocreate evidence to defend proceeding for restitution of marriage.Mr. Sapkal would also invite attention of this Court torepresentation made by applicant to the Superintendent of Policedated 23.01.2023 by which he has complained about mis-behaviourof respondent no.2 and her family members. He would, therefore,urge that impugned FIR and consequential criminal proceeding bequashed and set aside.5.Per contra, Mr. Dayama, learned APP appearing forrespondent-State and Mr. Andhale, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent no.2 vehemently opposed the application.6.We have considered submissions advanced on behalf oflearned Advocates appearing for respective parties. We haveminutely considered contents of FIR and statements of witnessesrecorded during the course of investigation. Apparently,respondent no.2 married with applicant no.1 on 13.09.2020. Therecord indicates that respondent no.2 was in service at Dr.Uttamrao Mahajan College of Education at village Kargaon, Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon as in-charge Principal. The respondentno.2 hardly resided in her matrimonial home at Gevrai, Dist. Beed.In this background, if allegations in the FIR are considered, it canbe noticed that for initial four months she was treated will.Thereafter, alleges ill-treatment for the reasons that she don’tknow household work and demand of Rs.3,00,000/-. Exceptaforesaid stipulation in the FIR, there are no specific allegationsagainst any accused. Apparently when respondent no.2 wasserving as in-charge Principal in College and applicant no.1 is anAdvocate, the general allegation that she was ill-treated on accountof demand of Rs.3,00,000/- without particulars of any event relating (4) appln-2266-2023.odtto such ill-treatment, allegations appears to be made up andimprobable. Although names of applicants are stated in the FIR,no stipulation is employed that would constitute offences ascharged. 7.The record shows that applicant no.1 had issued legal noticedated 01.02.2023 to respondent no.2 asking her to resumematrimonial relationship. Similarly on 23.01.2023 a detailedcomplaint regarding mis-behaviour of respondent no.2 and herfamily members has been made by applicant no.1. Thereafter FIRis lodged by respondent No. 2 against all the applicants. Oncompletion of investigation of this crime, charge-sheet is filed inthe Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnapur, whichcontains statements of mother, father and brother of respondentno.2. All the statements are stereotyped and sans materialparticulars to make out charged offences.8.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.1(2010) 7 SCC 667.