High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) appln-2218-2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2218 OF 20201.Chhaya w/o Prakash Kosalge, (Mother-in-law)Age: 60 years, Occu.: Household,R/o: In front of Government Ayurvedic College, Near S.P. Office, Nanded, Taluka and District: Nanded.2.Prakash s/o Purushottam Kosalge (Father-in-law)Age: 67 years, Occu.: Business,R/o: As above.3.Anil s/o Pandharinathrao Manathkar, (Family friend Age: 64 years, Occu.: Business,Mediator) R/o: Chikhalwadi Corner, Near Forest Office, Nanded, Taluka & Dist. Nanded.4.Dilip s/o Pandharinathrao Manathkar (Family friend Age: 67 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner,Mediators)R/o: As above.5.Sourabh s/o Prakash Kosalge, (Brother-in-law)Age: 27 years, Occu.: Medical Practioner,Original R/o: In front of Government Ayurvedic College, Near S.P. Office, Nanded, Taluka and District: Nanded, Presently residing at Government Medical Quarter Campus (Ghati Hospital), Aurangabad, Taluka and District: Aurangabad. ..ApplicantsVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,through the Officer Incharge, Vazirabad Police Station, Nanded, Taluka and District: Nanded.2.Digambar s/o Baburao Lamshetwar,Age; 56 years, Occu.: Business, R/o: House No.81, Padmaja City, Asarjan Road, Kautha, Nanded,Taluka and District: Nanded.Non-Applicants(No.2-Original informant) …
Legal Reasoning
(2) appln-2218-2020.odtMr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. D. R.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for Respondent No.1.Mr. A. B. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2. … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2024.JUDGMENT (Per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J):-1.The applicants have approached this Court under Section482 of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby praying to quash andset aside FIR in Crime No.391/2020 dated 14.08.2020 registeredwith Vazirabad Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Nanded for offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code as well as charge-sheet/final report bearingno.50/2021 dated 22.02.2021 and consequential criminal proceedingin RCC No.230/2021 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate atNanded.2.The non-applicant no.2 filed report dated 14.08.2020 withVazirabad Police Station alleging that his daughter Shraddha wasmarried with Swapnil Prakash Kosalge on 07.05.2019. Themarriage was mediated by applicant nos.3 and 4. After marriageShraddha resided in matrimonial home alongwith her in-laws.During her short stay, her father-in-law asked her to bring amountof Rs.5,00,000/- for medical shop and Rs.20,00,000/- for officepurchase at Pune from parents so also demanded travel expensestowards air tickets for Chicago, United States of America. TheShraddha told her mother about such demands raised within aperiod of seven days of marriage. The mediators i.e. applicantnos.3 and 4 were given idea about such demand and ill-treatment.Thereafter, on visit of informant to matrimonial house of Shraddhaalongwith mediators, she disclosed about ill-treatment meted toher and expressed apprehension to life. The mediators also (3) appln-2218-2020.odtsupported the demand of in laws. After two days amount ofRs.1,00,000/- was handed over to Swapnil. On 17.05.2019 theSwapnil and Shraddha left to Unites States. However, withinshort stay in USA, Shraddha came to know about extra maritalaffair of Swapnil and the fact that Swapnil had performedmarriage with her only with intention to extract money. She hadalso informed that she had been subjected to assault by Swapniland he made her to suffer starvation. Further, she was asked toconsume pills as advised by brother-in-law i.e. Dr. Sourabh. 3.Since, Shraddha suffered ill-treatment, on 11.09.2019 hermother and brother had been to USA. They noticed ill-treatmentsuffered by Shraddha. The mother and brother of Shraddhaattempted conciliation of disputes and requested Swapnil to carefor Shraddha. On 25.10.2019, Shraddha’s mother and brotherreturned Nanded. Thereafter, Shraddha informed that Swapnilwas asking for expenses towards stay of her mother and brother.On 27.10.2019 Shraddha informed that she has apprehension oflife. On 01.11.2019 Shraddha informed that her health has beendeteriorated, since she was administered pills as advised by Dr.Sourabh. On 04.11.2019 when Shraddha’s mother made phone callto Swapnil, he informed that Shraddha needs medical treatment.In afternoon, he informed that Shraddha lost life due to negligenceof doctors. On 08.11.2019 dead body of Shraddha was brought toNanded. The medical papers regarding her medical treatment inUSA were not provided by in-laws. Thereafter, last rites wereperformed on dead body of Shraddha. 4.It is accordingly alleged that Shraddha died of ill-treatmentas well as administration of pills. Consequently, CrimeNo.391/2020 came to be registered with Vazirabad Police Stationagainst in all six accused persons including applicants. The (4) appln-2218-2020.odtinvestigation progressed. Finally charge-sheet has been filedagainst applicants for aforesaid offences.5.Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, learned Senior Advocate appearing forthe applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicatedin aforesaid crime. The deceased Shraddha suffered natural deathin USA due to congenital cardiac disorder. After her death, non-applicant no.2 had initiated proceeding for issuance of successioncertificate to claim terminal benefit of life insurance policy,claiming himself to be only successor of Late Shraddha. In saidproceeding, applicant no.2 filed objection through applicant no.4,who is a reputed Advocate. Enraged by said fact, present FIR hasbeen lodged. He would point out that Shraddha died 04.11.2019,her dead body was brought to Nanded on 08.11.2019, present FIRhas been lodged on 14.08.2020. The inordinate delay of ninemonths in lodging FIR is unexplained. He would invite attention ofthis Court to the postmortem report and death certificate ofShraddha depicting her natural death, on account of rupturedaortic dissection. 6.Mr. Deshmukh would further point out that applicant nos.1and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased. Theapplicant nos.3 and 4 are family friends and mediators of marriage.Applicant no.5 is brother-in-law of deceased, who is post graduatemedical student at Aurangabad. Applicant nos.1 to 4 are residentof Nanded. Applicant no.5 is resident of Government Hospital atAurangabad. The allegations about ill-treatment towardsShraddha are omnibus and afterthought. The Shraddha resided ather matrimonial house in Nanded hardly for a period of nine daysbefore she departed to USA on 17.05.2019. He would, therefore,urge that demand and ill-treatment towards Shraddha at thehands of applicants is a concocted story and cannot be entertained (5) appln-2218-2020.odtfor prosecution of applicants. He urges to quash and set aside FIRand consequential criminal proceeding against applicants.7.Mr. Lavte, learned APP appearing for the respondent-Stateand and Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for respondentno.2 vehemently opposes the prayers in the application contendingthat stipulations in the FIR and material in the charge-sheet issufficient to constitute triable case against accused persons.8.We have considered submissions advanced on behalf oflearned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. We haveminutely considered the contents of FIR as well as material in thecharge-sheet. It can be observed that the daughter of non-applicant no.2 namely Shraddha married with son of applicantnos.1 and 2 on 07.05.2019. After short stay in the matrimonialhouse at Nanded, the couple departed to USA on 17.05.2019. On11.09.2019 Shraddha’s mother and brother traveled to USA andresided with her till 25.10.2019. The Shraddha expired on04.11.2019. The charge-sheet contains report of postmortemexamination issued by Assistant Medical Examiner, Office of theMedical Examiner, County of Cook, Illinois, Chicago, UnitedStates. The postmortem examination finds cause and manner ofdeath, which states as under:“POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION FINDINGS1. Ruptured aortic dissectiona. Hemoperitoneumb. Hemopericardiumc. Microscopic examination: confirms aortic dissection2. STAT vitreous drug screen dipsticks: Negative for cocaine,opiates, fentanyl, methamphetamine, and amphetamineCAUSE AND MANNER OF DEATH (6) appln-2218-2020.odtBased on the postmortem examination findings andinvestigation reports, this 25-year-old female died of rupturedaortic dissection. The manner of death is natural.”9.The certification of death record issued by Cook County ClerkVital Records, Chicago Illinois dated 11.05.2019 certifies manner ofdeath to be “natural”. Taking into account aforesaid documentaryevidence, it can be evidenced that death of Shraddha was natural.However, applicants are charged for offence punishable underSection 304-B of Indian Penal Code, hence, it would be apposite torefer to the wordings of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,which reads as under:“304B. Dowry death —(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns orbodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normalcircumstances within seven years of her marriage and it isshown that soon before her death she was subjected to crueltyor harassment by her husband or any relative of her husbandfor, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such deathshall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relativeshall be deemed to have caused her death.”10.Plain reading of aforesaid penal provision depicts that toconstitute offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code,the death of a woman shall be caused by any burns or bodily injuryor otherwise than under “normal circumstance” within sevenyears of marriage and soon before death of woman, she is subjectedto cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of herhusband for or in connection with any demand of dowry. Inpresent case, from the contents of the charge-sheet, observations inpostmortem examination report, particularly cause of deathmentioned, it is evident that death of Shraddha was natural, owingto congenital aortic dissection. There is nothing to depict thatdeath was otherwise than under normal circumstance. Secondly,contents of FIR do not show that at the time of marriage, the dowrywas fixed and there was demand of such dowry by the in-laws. (7) appln-2218-2020.odtThirdly, there is nothing to show that soon before death, Shraddhawas subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demandof dowry. 11.The Supreme Court of India in case of Satbir Singh andAnother Vs. State of Haryana1 while interpreting the termdowry observed that the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B shouldbe any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given inconnection with marriage. In present case, the contents of FIR orcharge-sheet nowhere depicts any such agreement. Further in caseof Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab2 the Supreme Court of India laiddown five essential ingredients to make out offence under Section304-B of the Indian Penal Code, which can be stipulated as under:“(i) the death of a woman should be caused by burns orbodily injury or otherwise than under a ‘normalcircumstance’; (ii)such a death should have occurred within seven years ofher marriage;(iii)the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment byher husband or any relative of her husband; (iv)such cruelty or harassment should be for or inconnection with demand of dowry; and (v)such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been metedout to the woman soon before her death.”12.On consideration of aforesaid elaboration of essentialingredients explained by Supreme Court of India, we find that infacts of present case, three important ingredients are missing.Firstly, death of Shraddha is not occurred otherwise than undernormal circumstance. Secondly, there is nothing to depict demandof dowry and harassment or cruelty in pursuance of such demand.Thirdly, there is nothing to depict that soon before death of1(2021) 6 SCC 1.2(2000) 5 SCC 207. (8) appln-2218-2020.odtShraddha she was subjected to such harassment or cruelty, whenshe died in USA.13.It is pertinent to note here that applicants before us areresident of Nanded. The Shraddha died in USA, while she wasresiding alongwith her husband. Admittedly, she resided at hermatrimonial home at Nanded only for the period of nine daysbefore her departure immediately after marriage to USA. Themother and brother of Shraddha had been to USA and resided withher from 11.10.2019 to 25.10.2019. At no point of time, complaintwas lodged by informant regarding ill-treatment to Shraddha byher in-laws. Even present FIR has been lodged after 10 months ofdeath of Shraddha. No explanation is given for the inordinatedelay in lodging the FIR. On other hand, there is room to believethat immediately after objection by applicant no.1 in proceedinginstituted by non-applicant no.2 for succession certificate to receiveterminal benefits of life insurance policy, the present FIR has beenlodged. Interestingly, applicant no.4, who is legal practitionerengaged by applicant no.1 to defend proceeding of successioncertificate is also made as an accused alongwith other applicants.14.At this stage reference can be given to the judgments of theSupreme Court of India in following cases:1.Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand andAnother3. 2.Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Another vs The StateOf Bihar and Others4.3.Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others54.Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharati6.3AIR 2010 SC 3363.4(2022) 6 SCC 599.5(2005) 6 SCC 281.6(2009) 10 SCC 184. (9) appln-2218-2020.odtWherein Supreme Court expressed need curb / guardmisuse of proceedings instituted under criminal law inmatrimonial disputes and false implication of relatives ofhusband to wreak vengeance against them.15.If aforesaid position of law is considered in the facts of thepresent case, it is apparent that the applicants who were residingin India and had short company of only nine days with Shraddhaimmediately after marriage are falsely implicated in presentproceeding. The applicant nos.3 and 4 are not even familymembers or relatives of deceased Shraddha. The applicant no.5 isa student of Post Graduate Medical Course and resides atGovernment Hospital at Aurangabad. In no case applicants couldhave ill-treated Shraddha, who died in USA. Considering thenature of allegations employed in FIR and material in the charge-sheet, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no triable caseagainst the applicants. The FIR and criminal proceeding is abuseof process of law. Applying the principles of law espoused in case ofState of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.7, wefind that this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, we proceed to passfollowing order:ORDERa.Criminal Application is allowed.b.The FIR in Crime No.391/2020 dated 14.08.2020 registeredwith Vazirabad Police Station, Tal. and Dist. Nanded for offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code as well as charge-sheet/final report bearingno.50/2021 dated 22.02.2021 for offences punishable under Sections304-B, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and7AIR 1992 SC 604. (10) appln-2218-2020.odtconsequential criminal proceeding in RCC No.230/2021 pendingbefore Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nanded are hereby quashedand set aside.c.Criminal Application is disposed of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/September-2024