High Court
Legal Reasoning
APPLN 2369 23.odt9.Per contra, the learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate who has beenappointed to represent the respondent no. 2 strongly oppose the application.They would submit that there are specific and precise allegations evenagainst rest of the applicants. It is a matter of proof which can be had onlyduring a full fledged trial. An opportunity deserves to be extended to theprosecution to substantiate the allegations by leading evidence and theapplication be rejected.10.Having considered the rival submissions and having perused thepapers of the investigation it is quite apparent that there are allegationsagainst the husband and the mother in law as regards the alleged demandand physical and mental illtreatment meted out to the respondent no. 2 overa period of time. 11.Rest of the applicants are concerned, they are the brothers in law andthe married sister in law. Admittedly, the marriage between the applicantno. 1 and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized way back in the year 2009and the couple led married life till the year 2021, just before filing of theF.I.R. Even the couple could beget couple of issues and one can easily makeout that the allegations are about the illtreatment meted out to therespondent no. 2 by the husband and mother in law. So far as the otherapplicants are concerned, no specific and exclusive role is attributed tothem. Not only in the F.I.R. but even in the statement of the witnessesrecorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are offather, brother and other relatives, the allegations qua the rest of theapplicants are merely vague and omnibus. At times there are someallegations attributing them of exhortation.12.If such is the quality of allegations and the material collected duringinvestigation, there is every room to believe and to demonstrate that the restof the applicants have been sought to be implicated with a view to harassthem, which is usual tendency noted by the Supreme Court in the matter of4/5 APPLN 2369 23.odtKahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar; (2002) 6 SCC599, which is preceded by several such decisions like Preeti Gupta and Anr.V/s. State of Jharkhand and Anr. [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667],Geeta Mahrotra & Anr V/s. State of U.P. & Anr. [2013 (AIR) (SC) 181].13.It would be sheer abuse of process of law if the applicants no. 2, 3 and5 who are brothers in law and married sister in law are allowed to face theprosecution based on such vague and omnibus allegations and their casesquarely covered by Bhajan Lal (supra).14.The Application is partly allowed. Crime No. 60/2022, registeredwith Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the consequent charge-sheet as well as the RegularCriminal Case No. 226/2022, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Latur are quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicant no. 2 SomnathTamannapa Raifale, applicant no. 3-Jaganath Tamannapa Raifale, andapplicant no. 5-Sunita w/o Nandkumar Gothe.15.The application to the extent of applicant no. 4-Vimalbai TamannappaRaifale, is dismissed as withdrawn.16.Learned advocate Ms. Namde was appointed to represent therespondent no. 2 and we quantify her fees at Rs. 3000/- (Rs. ThreeThousand only) to be paid through the High Court Legal Aid ServicesAuthority. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd/-5/5
Arguments
APPLN 2369 23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2369 OF 20231)Nagnath Tammanappa Raifale(disposed of as withdrawnon 01.08.2023)2)Somnath Tamannapa Raifale,Age 34 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Malkolanji Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur.3)Jaganath Tamannapa Raifale,Age 32 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Malkolanji Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur.4)Vimalbai Tamannappa Raifale,… (disposed of as withdrawn)5)Sunita w/o Nandkumar Gothe,Age 36 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Malkolanji Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur.…PetitionersVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtra,Through Vivekanand Chowk PoliceStation, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2)Sonali w/o Nagnath Raifale,Age 32 years, Occ. Household,R/o. Kharosa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur,Current Add. Badlava Nagar,LIC, Colony, Tq. & Dist. Latur.…Respondents…Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.N. Lale Yelwatkar.APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.N. LokhandeAdvocate for Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Yugandara A. Namde (Appointed)CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 02.02.20241/5 APPLN 2369 23.odtPER COURT : Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waivesservice for respondent no.1/State and learned advocate Ms. Namde waivesservice for the respondent no. 2. At the joint request of the parties, thematter is heard finally.2.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure seeking quashment of Crime No. 60/2022, registered withVivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, District Latur, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code and the consequent charge-sheet as well as the RegularCriminal Case No. 226/2022, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Latur.3.The application to the extent of the applicant no. 1, who happens tobe the husband of the respondent no. 2 was disposed of as withdrawn on01.08.2023.4.After hearing both the sides, when we express our disinclination togrant any relief to the applicant no. 4 who is the mother in law of therespondent no. 2, the learned advocate for the applicants seeks leave towithdraw the application to the extent of applicant no. 4 as well. 5.The F.I.R. alleges that the marriage between the applicant no. 1 andthe respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 17.05.2009. She was maintainedproperly for first three-four months. She thereafter realized that theapplicant no. 1 was addicted to liquor and under influence started abusingher. He was insisting her for purchasing a motor-cycle. When she narratedthe incident and the illtreatment meted out to her by the husband to rest of2/5 APPLN 2369 23.odt the applicants, they ignored and instead abused her and even they startedinsisting to bring a motor-cycle from the parents.6.The F.I.R. then mentions about the father of the respondent no. 2 andher other relatives from parental side having tried to convince the applicantsbut her plight continued and some how her father could purchase a motor-cycle for the applicant no. 1-husband.7.The F.I.R. further reads that the applicant no. 1 was thereaftertransferred to Guhagar, District Ratnagiri, where only the couple cohabitedand could beget a son in the year 2012 and a daughter in 2014. Theapplicant no. 1 thereafter started insisting her father for money formanaging his transfer. He was thereafter transferred to Latur in the year2014. Her father constructed a house for the couple on a plot standing inher name where they started residing. However, thereafter, the applicantsstarted insisting to mutate the house property in the name of applicantno. 1. On that count he started abusing and beating her and even he startedsome affair and ultimately the property was mutated in his name in the year2021 but still the illtreatment continued and the F.I.R. was lodged on20.01.2022.8.The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that theallegations are primarily against the husband and to some extent against themother in law. However, the rest of the applicants have been implicatedwithout attributing any specific incident. The allegations against them arevague and omnibus. The statements of the witnesses recorded underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are also equally vague andomnibus. Merely because the rest of the applicants have been named in theF.I.R. that would not suffice. They have been roped in with an ulteriorintention to harass them. It would be abuse of process of law if they aremade to face the prosecution as laid down in the matter of State of Haryanaand Ors V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors.: AIR 1992 Supreme Court, 604.3/5