High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:1375-DB This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Legal Reasoning
1 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc Corrected order (correction has been carried out in view of speaking to minutes order dated 29.01.2024) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 20231.Balaji s/o Dattatray Kamale2.Dattatray s/o Ramrao Kamale3.Ramji s/o Dattatray Kamale…ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Secretary Department of Home,Mantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Police Inspector,Police Station Ahmedpur,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.3.Sheetal w/o Balaji Kamale...Respondents...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. A.R. RathodAPP for the Respondents/State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.B. Bhise… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 19 JANUARY 2024FINAL ORDER [Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :.Heard both the sides finally. This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 2 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc 2.The applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court underSection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by challenging FirstInformation Report (FIR) bearing C.R. No.191/2023 registered withAhmedpur Police Station and Charge-sheet No.301/2023 in RCCNo.421/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ahmedpur.3.The applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent no.3. Theapplicant no.2 is his father and applicant no.3 is his brother. Thereis a matrimonial discord between the applicant no.1 andrespondent no.3. The applicant no.1 is stated to have issued noticeto the respondent no.3 expressing intention to dissolve marriage.The respondent no.3 is staying with her parents alongwith a son forone year preceding registration of impugned FIR.4.It is a matter of record that the respondent no.3 has filed FIRbearing C.R. No.381/2022 registered with Chakur Police Station forthe offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants and others. Byjudmgnet and order dated 28.02.2023, the complaint to the extentof applicant no.3 to 6 in Criminal Application No.3737/2022 wasquashed by the High Court. A copy of the order dated 28.02.2023 is This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 3 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc placed on record. The applicant no.1 has filed Hindu MarriagePetition No.78/2022 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division,Ahmedpur for dissolution of marriage against the respondent no.3which is pending. 5.In the given scenario, the respondent no.3 has filed complaintunder challenge alleging that on 07.04.2023, she had been to hermatrimonial home on being requested by the applicant no.1 toattend engagement function of the applicant no.3. The relatives ofthe parties are stated to have gathered for the function. Therespondent no.3 was not being allowed to enter house and wasabused by the applicants and others. The applicant no.2/father-in-law is alleged to have attempted to set her ablaze. She somehowrushed to the bathroom and extinguished the fire. Then theapplicant no.1 hit her on head by a stick. 6.The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that theincident in question is imaginary and concocted. During thecourse of investigation, the statements of the eye-witnesses arerecorded which disclose that the alleged instance of assault andattempt to set her ablaze never took place. The applicants have This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Legal Reasoning
4 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc been falsely implicated in the offence in question. The injurycertificate does not corroborate the version of the respondent no.3.It is further submitted that since the applicant no.1 had alreadyfiled the proceedings for dissolution of marriage, there was noquestion of requesting the respondent no.3 to attend the function.It is highly improbable. 7.The learned APP and the learned Counsel for the respondentno.3 vehemently oppose the submissions of the learned Counsel forthe applicants. They would submit that the seizure panchnama ofthe clothes and pen-drive containing CCTV footage have beenrecovered. The presence of the respondent no.3 at the relevanttime has been established. They would further submit that the socalled eye-witnesses are relatives and they are interestedwitnesses. It is further submitted that considering the strainedrelations, there was a motive to eliminate the respondent no.3. 8.Learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 would submit thatthe statement under Section 164 of the respondent no.3 has beenrecorded which clearly makes out a case for offences underSections 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The statements of This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 5 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc the father and the brother corroborate her version. They wouldurge to dismiss the application. 9. We have considered the submissions of the parties. We havegone through the papers of investigation. There is no dispute thatthe respondent no.3 has been residing separately for last one yearpreceding FIR. The applicant no.1 has filed Hindu MarriagePetition No.78/2022 for dissolution of marriage. The respondentno.3 has also filed complaint bearing C.R. No.381/2022 underSections 498A, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC against the applicantsand others. By order of High Court dated 28.02.2023, offencebearing C.R. No.381/2022 has been quashed to the extent of fewaccused therein. These events indicate that relationship betweenapplicant no.1 and respondent no.3 has been strained. 10.The complaint of the respondent no.3 proceeds with versionthat applicant no.1 issued a notice for dissolution of marriage. On02.04.2023, the couple met at the bus-station of Shirur Tajband. Itis further stated that he requested her to attend engagementceremony of the applicant no.3 to be held on 07.04.2023. Thereafterthe incident occurred on 07.04.2023 as has been narrated in thecomplaint. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 6 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc that there was any conversation between the couple on 02.04.2023and on the request of applicant no.1, the respondent no.3 attendedthe function on 07.04.2023.11.We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the relations betweenrespondent no.3 and applicants are strained. The matrimonialdispute has come to fore. It is inherently improbable that he wouldhave invited estranged wife and she would oblige the applicant no.1in attending the function on 07.04.2023. We have not been shownany material to indicate that despite the matrimonial dispute therewas some compromise and respondent no.3 had been to the place ofthe applicants.12.Learned Counsel for the applicants has invited our attentionto the statements of eight witnesses namely, Rajkumar; Mahesh;Narayan; Nandkumar; Maruti; Dashrath; Gopal and Santosh. Theyare consistent in their statements disclosing that the respondentno.3 had been to the place of the applicants, but she was notpermitted to enter the house and she was asked to go away as theirdispute had reached the Court. It further reveals that after waitingfor some time, she went away. These witnesses do not refer to theovert act as alleged in the complaint, much less any physical This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 7 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc contact by the applicants with her. We find force in thesubmissions of learned Counsel for the applicants that thestatements make the allegations in the complaint improbable.13.It further transpires from the police papers that injurycertificate shows two simple injuries on the person of therespondent no.3. This is incompatible with the version ofrespondent no.3 in the complaint. The respondents havevehemently submitted that the CCTV footage is collected duringthe course of investigation. A reliance is placed on seizurepanchnama of the clothes and pen-drive containing CCTV footage.It is not made clear by learned APP that what is the source of pen-drive/CCTV footage. We have not been shown the relevantstatement or material collected during the investigation disclosingthe place of installation of CCTV camera and source of itsrecording. Thus the seizure panchnama prepared during thecourse of investigation also does not lead us anywhere. Rather thevisuals singly corroborate statements of the witnesses about shehaving reached the entrance waited for some time and then left theplace. 14.The contents of FIR taken as they are, are inherently This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated // 8 1020.Cri.Appln.-2527-2023.doc improbable. We are of the considered view that no case is made outfor commission of offences under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 readwith 34 of IPC. The present case falls within the parameters laiddown by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors.Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604. We, therefore, passfollowing order.ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)The FIR bearing C.R. No.191/2023 registered with Ahmedpur Police Station Latur and Charge-sheet No.301/2023 in RCC No.421/2023 are quashed and set aside.[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]Najeeb...