High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD15 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1521 OF 20241Raju @ Vishwanath Gangadhar Burle,Age 47 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Kathwate Nagar, Renapur Naka,Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2Savitri w/o Uddhav Halse,Age 63 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Halse Galli, Ahmedpur,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 3Uddhav Dasrao Halse,Age 65 yrs., Occ. Business,R/o Halse Galli, Ahmedpur,Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4Dhanraj Balaji Burle,Age 29 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Karadkhed, Tq. Udgir,Dist. Latur. 5Yuvraj Balaji Burle,Age 27 yrs., Occ. Student,R/o Karadkhed, Tq. Udgir,Dist. Latur. 6Manik Ramdas Burle,Age 31 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o Karadkhed, Tq. Udgir,Dist. Latur. … Petitioners… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Officer,
Legal Reasoning
215_Cri.WP_1521_2024Vivekanand Chowk Police Station,Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2Prasad Muralidhar Waghmode,Age 45 yrs., Occ. Business,R/o Manik Nagar, Nanded. … Respondents...Mr. R.B. Hake, Advocate for petitionersMr. V.K. Kotecha, APP for respondent No.1Mr. Yogesh Birajdar, Advocate h/f Mr. N.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondentNo.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE:10th JULY, 2025ORDER :( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present petition has been filed for quashment of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.416/2024 dated 27.06.2024 registeredwith Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, for the offence punishableunder Sections 304 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.B. Hake for petitioners, learned 315_Cri.WP_1521_2024APP Mr. V.K. Kotecha for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. YogeshBirajdar holding for learned Advocate Mr. N.S. Shinde for respondent No.2. 3Learned Advocate for petitioners submits that respondent No.2 isbrother of deceased Jyoti, who was married to petitioner No.1 on26.05.2003. Petitioner No.2 is sister of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3 ishusband of petitioner No.2, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are cousin nephews ofpetitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 is also nephew i.e. son of another brotherof petitioner No.1. 4Respondent No.2 In his First Information Report has stated thathis sister Jyoti was treated properly for about six months only after themarriage and thereafter petitioner No.1 used to demand amount on one orthe other pretext from him. If they were not providing the said amount, thenpetitioner No.1 used to harass Jyoti. Jyoti gave birth to twin daughters on12.05.2005 and petitioner No.1 thereafter started saying that he is aGovernment servant and, therefore, he cannot have three children, therefore,he refused to take daughters with him, however, when he was advised,thereafter he took them along with him. Respondent No.2 further states inFirst Information Report that petitioner No.1 had demanded amount ofRs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of purchase of plot in July, 2007 and that 415_Cri.WP_1521_2024amount was given by informant. On the said plot petitioner No.1 hasconstructed three storied building. As there were daughters to Jyoti, she wasmentally harassed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. According to respondent No.2,petitioner No.1 was not taking proper care of Jyoti and daughters. LearnedAdvocate for petitioners submits that at no point of time Jyoti had filed anyFirst Information Report for the offence punishable under Section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code. It is tried to be stated on behalf of prosecution thatJyoti had given a written complaint to Superintendent of Police, Latur on29.08.2022, however, no offence came to be registered. 5Respondent No.2 has further stated in his First InformationReport that Jyoti became ill on 23.02.2024 and at that time it was told by herto family members that petitioner No.1 has no intention that she should liveand, therefore, he is making her to starve and giving mental and physicalharassment. He was not providing treatment to Jyoti. Informant and hisfamily members were requesting petitioner No.1 to take Jyoti for treatment,but it was on the deaf ears of petitioner No.1. As there was no improvementin the health of Jyoti, respondent No.2 admitted her to BirajdarMultispeciality Hospital, Latur. She was admitted in Intensive Care Unit. Shewas treated there and then though requested, petitioner No.1 refused to giveher treatment. The informant and his mother admitted Jyoti to Bhagwati 515_Cri.WP_1521_2024Multispeciality Hospital, Nanded and after some days she was asked to betaken to Hyderabad for further treatment. Accordingly, she was taken toHyderabad. But her health deteriorated. Unfortunately, she expired on20.03.2024. Petitioner No.1 had not even taken care to take the body incustody and perform last rites. The last rites were therefore performed byrespondent No.2 at Nanded on 21.03.2024. In connection with this portionof First Information Report petitioners’ Advocate relies on online transactions,whereby petitioner No.1 had transferred amount of Rs.50,000/- each on11.03.2024 on the account of his both daughters separately and Rs.50,000/-on 15.03.2024 to the account of his daughter Janhavi. There was disputebetween petitioner No.1 and Jyoti and daughters were also taking educationat Latur and were staying with informant. First Information Report is silenton the point, since when Jyoti was kept starved by petitioner No.1. Now, theoffence is under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. There cannot be anysuch intention on the part of petitioner No.1 that Jyoti should die. In fact,with the help of two daughters informant along with his mother had forciblyentered the house of petitioner No.1 by breaking the lock and goldornaments and cash was taken away. Now, in First Information Reportinformant states that he along with his nieces Vaishnavi and Janhavi went tothe house of petitioner No.1 on 14.06.2024 and found that it was locked.Janhavi called his cousin Dhanraj with key, which Dhanraj brought and then 615_Cri.WP_1521_2024he says that petitioner Dhanraj, Manik and Yuvraj came there and asked themto vacate the house and told that they would be given the same treatment asthat was given to their mother. Unnecessarily petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have beenroped in Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code cannot get attracted againstthem. 6Per contra, learned APP and learned Advocate for respondentNo.2 strongly opposed the petition and submitted that charge sheet is yet tobe filed and, therefore, only on the basis of First Information Report it cannotbe quashed and set aside. Learned APP has made available the papers ofinvestigation, wherein statements of witnesses have been recorded. Hesubmits that now the matter is pending for Handwriting Expert’s opinion and,therefore, charge sheet has not been filed. It has been transpired that eventhe mobile numbers of the daughters were blocked by present petitionerNo.1. That means, he was disowning his responsibility towards wife anddaughters. 7Here, it is to be noted that even from First Information Reportthe offence under Section 304, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode cannot be said to be made out. There are absolutely no explanationsand First Information Report is silent mainly on the point, as to since when 715_Cri.WP_1521_2024Jyoti was kept starving. Here, it is to be noted that petitioner No.1’sdaughters are residing with respondent No.2 and it appears to be since theirbirth. Of course, we need not go into those details as to what had happened,but at no point of time there was an attempt by informant to leave daughtersof petitioner No.1 at the house of petitioner No.1. Further, it appears thatthose daughters were born on 12.05.2005 and Jyoti became ill on23.02.2024. The long gap from 2005 to 2024 regarding treatment ofpetitioner No.1 with Jyoti and daughters has not been given in details in FirstInformation Report. Prior to 23.02.2024 it appears that there was nocomplaint by Jyoti that she has been kept starved. The investigation paperscontain photo copy of death summary from Apollo Hospitals, Hyderabad.The cause of death is “Severe Covid Acute Respiratory Distress Syndromewith Septic Shock”. Diagnosis was also the same and additional diagnosiswas “Severe Covid 19 Pneumonia with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome”.The history that was given was that the patient had no known comorbiditiesbut had complaint of fever, cough and cold since 23.02.2023. The date ofadmission with Apollo Hospitals was 10.03.2024. That means, for about ayear she was having those complaints, but later it is stated that the feversubsided. Then there was dry cough increased since seven days prior to dateof admission. That means, Jyoti died because of severe Covid 19 Pneumonia.Now, respondent No.2 wants to encash her death to implicate the petitioners. 815_Cri.WP_1521_2024The statements of daughters have also been recorded and in their statementsboth of them have stated that impression was given to them that the fatherwas ridiculing them because they are daughters and as the father is aGovernment servant he cannot have third child. Both of them have notstated that the father has never made provision for eatables for them andtheir mother. If since their birth, that means, in 2005 they were keptstarving, they would not have survived till the date of their statements wererecorded. Certainly, First Information Report appears to be lodged forwreaking vengeance against petitioners. 8Now, unnecessarily Investigating Officer is waiting forHandwriting Expert’s opinion. The complaint that was given was dated02.05.2022 and for almost two years Jyoti had survived. The said complaintapplication cannot be made admissible under Section 32(1) of the IndianEvidence Act, as it is not relating to cause of death. Under suchcircumstance, it would be an abuse of process of law if all the petitioners areasked to face the trial. Certainly, petitioner Nos.2 to 6 have been ropedunnecessarily. Hence, we proceed to pass following order. ORDERi)Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed. 915_Cri.WP_1521_2024ii)First Information Report vide Crime No.416/2024 dated27.06.2024 registered with Vivekanand Chowk Police Station, Latur, for theoffence punishable under Sections 304 and 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as against petitionersviz. 1) Raju @ Vishwanath Gangadhar Burle, 2) Savitri w/o Uddhav Halse, 3)Uddhav Dasrao Halse, 4) Dhanraj Balaji Burle, 5) Yuvraj Balaji Burle and 6)Manik Ramdas Burle. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. )( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd