High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD44 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3607 OF 2024Dnyaneshwar Raosaheb Dhoble,Age 38 yrs., Occ. Municipal Councellor,R/o Sanjay Nagar, Old Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna. … Applicant… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector,Police Station, Kadim Jalna,Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 2Priyanka Rajendra Ratnaparkhe,Age 28 yrs., Occ. Private Service,R/o Shankarnagar, Old Jalna. … Respondents...Mr. A.C. Sisodiya, Advocate for applicantMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :25th MARCH, 2025 244_Cri.Appln_3607_2024ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed initially for quashment of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.68/2024 dated 23.02.2024 registered withPolice Station, Kadim Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna and later on by way ofamendment for quashing charge sheet i.e. proceedings in Special CaseNo.419/2024 pending before learned Special Judge, under the S.C. & S.T.Act, Jalna, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.C. Sisodiya for applicant, learnedAPP Mr. S.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. M.P.Tripathi for respondent No.2. 3Learned Advocate for applicant vehemently submits that perusalof First Information Report lodged by respondent No.2 would show that it isbelatedly given with ulterior motive and in spite of having knowledge aboutthe consequences of her acts, when she had consensual relationship. Asregards present applicant is concerned, exact relationship is also not statedbetween main accused and applicant. Even if it is taken that present 344_Cri.Appln_3607_2024applicant is a relative; yet, he is not residing with the main accused and,therefore, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be attracted againsthim. The role attributed to present applicant is that he had invited theinformant by giving a phone call on the cell phone of her mother on08.02.2024 that she should come to their house. Prior to that she says thatshe had love affair with Krishna Dhobale, the main accused and even theyhad married with each other on 23.01.2024. Then she says that when shewas called in the house on 08.02.2024, at that time abuses in the name ofcaste were given and she was driven out of the house. She then states thatshe was anyhow taken with the intervention of the police in the house ofKrishna on 16.02.2024. Then as regards present applicant is concerned, shesays that around 10.00 a.m. on 17.02.2024 he went to the house of Krishnaand started asking her as to why she has come in the house and then abusedher in the name of caste. Therefore, these allegations do not attract theingredients of even Atrocities Act. Merely, because the applicant is theMunicipal Counsellor he has been roped in. 4Per contra, learned APP as well as learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the application. They both have statedthat as regards present applicant’s role is concerned, because of his acts theharassment was given or she was subjected to cruelty by the other accused 444_Cri.Appln_3607_2024persons. The abuses though stated to be given inside the house; yet, it wouldbe a matter of trial, as to whether it was within public view or not. LearnedAdvocate for respondent No.2 tries to rely on the decision in Swaran Singhvs. State, [(2008) 8 SCC 435]. 5Present application is filed by only one accused and, therefore,we are required to consider his role to the limited extent. Informant statesthat she is Bauddha by caste. It appears that she entered into marriage withaccused No.2 Krishna Dhobale under the Special Marriage Act on 23.01.2024and prior to that it appears that she had obtained divorce from her earlierhusband under Section 13(1)(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HinduMarriage Petition No. F–104/2023 by Judgment and Decree dated04.11.2023 from Judge, Family Court, Jalna. In the First Information Report,interestingly she says that Krishna had made phone call to his mother andtold about intention to marry the informant, at that time the mother told thatshe is not objecting and they can perform registered marriage, but then afterthe marriage Krishna told her that the work of construction is going on in hishouse, therefore, she should not come to house and after he informs themother, she can accompany him. She says that in spite of her insistenceseveral times to take her with him he was not taking her with him. Then shesays that on 08.02.2024 present applicant had given a phone call on mobile 544_Cri.Appln_3607_2024of her mother and asked her to come to house. She had refused that offer,but then when applicant insisted, she went to his house, that means,applicant’s house, where Krishna and other persons were present. She thenstates that at that time the applicant abused her in the name of caste and toldthat they do not accept her and, therefore, she should give signatures on thebond and they will just get rid of the marriage. We are only taking thestatements from First Information Report as it is and it appears that the saidincident had taken place inside the house, which cannot be a public place.Even the spot panchnama, which was executed after it was shown byinformant, does not show that it was in the public view. Then as regardsother incident is concerned, the informant states that around 10.00 a.m. on17.02.2024 applicant went to the house. Now, here she refers the house ofaccused Krishna, because she says that on 16.12.2024 with the interventionof the police she went to reside with Krishna. Even then incident of17.02.2024 has also taken place in the house. Therefore, the basicingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act are notattracted. No other person was present at the said place and, therefore, werely on the observations from Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand andanother by Three Judge Bench decision reported in (2020) 10 Supreme CourtCases 710. In paragraph Nos.14 it has been observed thus - 644_Cri.Appln_3607_202414.Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidationin “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place inpublic view” had come up for consideration before this Court in thejudgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435. TheCourt had drawn distinction between the expression “public place”and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence iscommitted outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, andthe lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside theboundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within thepublic view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building,but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives orfriends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the publicview. The Court held as under : “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the firstinformant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a“chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate ofthe premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within publicview, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view.It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence beencommitted inside a building, and also was not in the public view.However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in alawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from theroad or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be aplace within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside abuilding, but some members of the public are there (not merelyrelatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in thepublic view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “placewithin public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can bea private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, apublic place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leasedby the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons orprivate bodies.” (emphasis in original) 744_Cri.Appln_3607_20246The role attributed to the present applicant is of two incidencesonly, that too, for few minutes or hours and, therefore, it cannot beconsidered as a cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian PenalCode. The other offences are absolutely not even attracted. Therefore, this isa fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure. Hence, following order. ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)The charge sheet i.e. proceedings in Special Case No.419/2024pending before learned Special Judge, under the S.C. & S.T. Act, Jalna arisingout of First Information Report vide Crime No.68/2024 dated 23.02.2024registered with Police Station, Kadim Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, for the offencepunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1960 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, stands quashed and set aside as against applicant DnyaneshwarRaosaheb Dhoble.( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd