High Court
Facts
1 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No. 750 Of 20231.Manohar Shivdas BadgujarAge : 71 years, Occu. Retired,2.Nandini Manohar BadgujarAge : 61 years, Occu. HousewifeBoth R/at 4/8, Artist Village, Sector 8,CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Thane. ...PetitionersVersus1.State of MaharashtraThrough Sr. Police Inspector,Chopda City Police Station.2.Ankita Mayur BadgujarAge : 26 years, Occu. NILR/at C/o Bhargarv Jagannath SalunkheBadgujar Galli, Chopda, Tal. ChopdaDist. Jalgaon....RespondentsANDCriminal Writ Petition No. 912 Of 20231.Shamali Ganesh BadgujarAge : 33 years, Occu. Professional,R/at B01, Saipark CHS, NandgaonJNPT Road, Panvel.2.Sunil Uddhav Badgujar,Age : 58 years, Occu. Labour,R/at Bhagyoday Nagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon.
Legal Reasoning
5 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc Criminal Writ Petition No.750/2023Number of PetitionerName of the PetitionerRelationship with the Respondent No.21Manohar Shivdas BadgujarUncle-in-law2Nandini Manohar BadgujarAunt-in-lawCriminal Writ Petition No.912/20231Shamali Ganesh BadgujarSister-in-law2Sunil Uddhav BadgujarMaternal Uncle-in-law3Jayashree Sunil BadgujarMaternal Aunt-in-law4Sudhakar Shivdas Badgujar Uncle-in-law5Ushabai Sudhakar Badgujar Aunt-in-law6UddhavRajaram BadgujarGrandfather – in-law7Ashok Shivdas Badgujar Uncle-in-law8Bharati Vijay Badgujar Aunt-in-lawCriminal Writ Petition No.944/20231Kishor Shivdas BadgujarFather-in-law2Madhavi Kishor BadgujarMother-inlaw4.The respondent no.2 got married with Mayur KishorBadgujar on 26.12.2021. She started residing with him atAlibagh alongwith parents-in-law. There is no dispute thatthe petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.750/2023 wereresiding at Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai at the relevant time.Petitioner no.1/Shamali in Criminal Writ Petition No.912/2023was residing at Panvel. Remaining petitioners were residingat Chopda, District Jalgaon. Petitioners in Criminal WritPetition No.944/2023 were residing with married couple atAlibagh. 6 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc 5.Respondent no.2/Ankita lodged report with ChopdaPolice Station on 01.05.2023 which is registered as C.R.No.194/2023 stating that her husband/Mayur was unable tohave the sexual relationship with her. Their marriage wasnot consummated and she was blamed for that. She wasbeing mentally and physically harassed by husband/Mayurand his parents. Petitioner/Shamali sister-in-law also–supported them. She was being harassed for not performingthe marriage as per the expectations. Her plight continuedeven after the couple stayed separately. When she reportedthat her husband was impotent, she was harassed andinsisted for bringing expenses for medical treatment.6.It is further alleged that informant was beingdemanded Rs.5 Lacs for giving divorce. Other petitionersalso supported husband and parents-in-law. Ultimately,informant was taken to her parental home on 07.10.2022.Attempt of reconciliation failed as husband was beingcastigated as impotent. Another attempt was made forreconciliation on 10.11.2022. When all the accused werepresent, marriage was requested to be dissolved byinformant. It was not accepted by husband and hisrelatives/accused.7.Impugned FIR was investigated and charge-sheet was 7 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc filed which culminated in RCC No.250/2023, pending beforethe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopda.8.Learned Counsel Mr. P.R. Kattneshwarkar for thepetitioners submits that his clients are uncle and aunt of thehusband who never shared matrimonial home as they wereresidents of C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The allegationsagainst them are vague. Only role attributed against them isthat they insisted for continuing marital relationship betweeninformant with her husband, instead of divorce. He wouldsubmit that they are roped in with oblique motive and dueto the strained relationship of informant with her husband.9.Learned Counsel Mr. Manoj Badgujar for thepetitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.912/2023 and944/2023 adopts the submissions. Additionally he wouldsubmit that bedroom dispute between husband and wife hasbeen capitalized by the informant when his clients did notplay any role. It is reiterated that his clients were residentof different places and had no occasion to interact with thecouple. He would refer to written complaint made byinformant to Women’s Grievance Cell on 27.01.2023 whichonly spells about ill-treatment meted out by the husband. Itis submitted that informant has vindictively implicated thepetitioners. 8 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc 10.Per contra, learned APP Mr. V.M. Jaware and learnedCounsel for respondent no.2 Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil opposethe submissions of the petitioners. They would submit thatthere is adequate material to proceed against the petitioners.FIR and statements of the witnesses indicate theircomplicity. Informant was being harassed for bearing medicalexpenses and later on for Rs.5 Lakhs to dissolve marriage.Petitioners have abetted the offence. It is further submittedthat a full-fledged trial is necessary to decide role played bythe petitioners.11.We have considered rival submissions of litigating sides.We have gone through FIR and other papers of investigation.There is no dispute that informant cohabited withhusband/Mayur at Alibagh. Her parents-in-law were residingwith them. Other petitioners have not shared the commonshelter with couple. Before lodging complaint, informant hadapproached Women’s Grievance Cell vide her applicationdated 27.01.2023.12.A careful perusal of FIR shows that father-in-law,mother-in-law and the couple resided together at Alibagh,after marriage. After some period, the couple startedresiding separately. We find that husband and his parentsplayed incriminating role in causing ill-treatment. There was 9 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc direct confrontation with the informant as they were residingtogether. They are also accused of demanding expenses ofmedical treatment as well as Rs. 5,00,000/- for gettingdivorce. Thereafter also on 07.10.2022 and 10.11.2022, theywere present and played active role. The statements ofwitnesses also corroborate complaint in material particulars.Statement of Ganesh would not make any difference. 13.We are of the considered view that there is prima faciecase against the petitioners from Criminal Writ PetitionNo.944/2023, father-in-law and mother-in-law. We are notinclined to grant any relief to them. We propose to rejecttheir petition.14.The informant lodged a complaint with the Women’sGrievance Cell on 27.01.2023. Interestingly, it does not spellout any specific incriminating role against the petitionersfrom Criminal Writ Petition No.750/2023 and 912/2023. Theconduct of husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law has beencastigated. That is also reason as to why we are not inclinedto grant relief to the father-in-law and the mother-in-law. Sofar as the petitioners excepting father-in-law and mother-in-law, are concerned, omnibus and vague allegations are madeagainst them. They are not resident of Alibagh. Though thepetitioner/Shamali, sister-in-law is alleged to have abetted ill- 10 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc treatment by visiting Alibagh, there are no materialparticulars. On such vague allegations, prosecution would bean exercise in futility.15.The relations between informant and her husband werestrained. The genesis of the prosecution is alleged impotencyof husband and the harassment emanating from it. Thisbeing a personal affair between the husband and the wife, atthe most parents-in-law can have some role to cause ill-treatment to informant but not the rest of the relatives. Inall probability, implication of petitioners in Criminal WritPetition No.750/2023 and 912/2023 is to wreak vengeance,as observed by the Supreme Court in the matter ofKahekashan Kaisar Khan Vs. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC599, Geeta Mehrotra and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,(2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State ofJharkhand and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3363, false implication ofabove petitioners is evident.16.Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks reliance onlatest judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of MahmoodAli and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 SCCOnLine SC 950. We have gone through paragraph no.13. Itlays down that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, theCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of 11 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, owesa duty to look into many other attending circumstancesemerging from the record and if necessary to read inbetween the lines with due care and circumspection. Wehave undertaken the exercise contemplated by the judgment.We are of the considered opinion that it would be anexercise in futility to allow these other petitioners to facethe prosecution. We, therefore pass following order :ORDER(i)The Criminal Writ Petition No.750/2023 and CriminalWrit Petition No.912/2023 are allowed.(ii)The Criminal Writ Petition No.944/2023 is rejected.(iii)First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 194 of 2023registered with Chopda City Police Station, District Jalgaonfor the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504,506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andconsequential RCC No.250/2023 pending before the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Chopda, are quashed and set aside tothe extent of petitioners in Criminal Writ PetitionNo.750/2023 and 912/2023. SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE JUDGENAJEEB
Arguments
2 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc 3.Jayashri Sunil BadgujarAge : 47 years, Occu. House wife,R/at Bhagyoday Nagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. 4.Sudhakar Shivdas Badgujar,Age : 63 years, Occu. Tailoring,R/at Bhagyoday Nagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. 5.Ushabai Sudhakar Badgujar,Age : Adult, Occu. House wife,R/at Bhagyoday Nagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. 6.Uddhav Rajaram Badgujar,Age : 85 years, Occu. NIL,R/at Bhagyoday Nagar, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. 7.Ashok Shivdas Badgujar,Age : 76 years, Occu. Retired,R/at Plot No.26, Madan Mohan Nagar,Opposite to Jijamata College,Nandurbar.8.Bharati Vijay Badgujar,Age : 62 years, Occu. Widow and Housewife,R/at N42, VDI, Savata Nagar, CIDCO,Nashik. ...PetitionersVersus1.State of MaharashtraThrough Sr. Police Inspector,Chopda City Police Station. 3 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc 2.Ankita Mayur BadgujarAge : 26 years, Occu. NILR/at C/o Bhargarv Jagannath SalunkheBadgujar Galli, Chopda, Tal. ChopdaDist. Jalgaon....RespondentsANDCriminal Writ Petition No. 944 Of 20231.Kishor Shivdas BadgujarAge : 61 years, Occu. Retired,2.Madhavi Kishor BadgujarAge : 54 years, Occu. HousewifeBoth R/at Udhyam Nagar, Kurul-Veshvi Road,Taluka. Alibag, Dist. Raigad....PetitionersVersus1.State of MaharashtraThrough Sr. Police Inspector,Chopda City Police Station.2.Ankita Mayur BadgujarAge : 26 years, Occu. NILR/at C/o Bhargarv Jagannath SalunkheBadgujar Galli, Chopda, Tal. ChopdaDist. Jalgaon....Respondents .…Advocate for Petitioners in Cri.W.P. No.750/2023 : Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar i/by Mr. A.V. Hon.Advocate for Petitioners in Cri.W.P. No.912/2023 and 944/2023 :Mr. Manoj Badgujar h/f Mr. A.V. Hon. 4 949.Cri.WP.-750, 912, 944-2023.doc APP for Respondent/s State : Mr. V.M. Jaware– Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prafullasing H. Patil… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 2 APRIL 2024FINAL ORDER [Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :.Heard learned Counsel Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar and Mr.Manoj Badgujar instructed by Mr. A.V. Hon for thepetitioners; learned APP Mr. V.M. Jaware for State and Mr.Prafullasing H. Patil for Respondent No.2, finally at theadmission stage. 2.All the petitioners are seeking quashment of FirstInformation Report bearing C.R. No. 194 of 2023 registeredwith Chopda City Police Station, District Jalgaon againstthem, for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504,506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andconsequential RCC No.250/2023 pending before the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Chopda.3.The petitioners are related to the respondentno.2/Informant as follows :