High Court
Legal Reasoning
13592.2024APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3592 OF 2024 1.Yashodabai Devidas BaisaneAge : 65 years, Occ : Household, R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English High School New Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule District Dhule 424 001 2.Devidas Narayan BaisaneAge : 70 years, Occ : Retd. R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English High School New Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule District Dhule 424 001 3.Rajendra Devidas BaisaneAge : 44 years, Occ : Service, R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English High School New Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule District Dhule 424 001 4.Meena Ramesh MoreAge : 47 years, Occ : Household, R/o 25, Sakri Road, Navajivan English High School New Sai Ekta Nagar, Dhule District Dhule 424 001 5.Anil Ananda SonawaneAge : 56 years, Occ : Agri., Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Putala Jahangirpura Erandol, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon 425109 6.Ashok Namdev SalunkheAge : 70 years, Occ : Agri., At Post. Gandhili, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon 425420 ..APPLICANTS
Legal Reasoning
23592.2024APPLN.odt-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Sub-Inspector, Dhule Police Station, Dhule,Tq. Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 2.Kajal Rahul BaisaneAge : 30 years, Occ : Household, R/o Plot no.25A, Swami Dayanand HousingSociety, Sakri Road, Deur Budruk, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicants : Mr. R.W. Baul APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.R. Kale Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Akram Inamdar (Appointed) …CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATED : 8th JANUARY, 2025., 2024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The present application is filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) praying to quash F.I.R.No.74/2019 registered against applicants on 02.03.2019 with DhuleCity Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 2.The said F.I.R. is lodged by respondent no.2. ApplicantNos.1 to 4 are related to respondent no.2 as mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively. Applicant Nos.5 and 6 33592.2024APPLN.odtare the husbands of sisters-in-law of respondent no.2. Rahul Baisanehas died on 22.11.2019. The applicants alleged that Rahul Baisane,husband of respondent no.2 committed suicide due to mental distressand harassment caused by respondent no.2 by resorting to vexatiousand frivolous litigation against her husband- the deceased. RespondentNo.2 has stated in the FIR that she had filed a domestic violence caseseeking maintenance against her husband at Dhule. On 28.02.2019, shewas present in Dhule Court premises along with her father and brotherto attend the domestic violence case, which was fixed on that date. Shehas stated that her husband did not turn up in the Court on the saiddate and after the next date was given, while they were still in theCourt premises, her husband and the present applicants came there andstarted beating her father and brother and when she intervened, shewas also beaten up by them. She then states that due to the chaoticsituation, the people in the Court premises intervened and saved them.Based on these allegations, respondent no.1 has registered the aboveFIR and after completion of investigation has filed Charge-SheetNo.69/2020 on 30.06.2020. Pursuant to which, S.C.C. No.1566/2020came to be registered and is pending adjudication before the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule.3.We have heard Mr.R.W. Bagul, learned counsel for the 43592.2024APPLN.odtapplicants. He states that since there was matrimonial discord betweenrespondent no.2 and her husband, she has implicated all the familymembers of her estranged husband by lodging false FIR. He states thatthe contents of FIR are most unbelievable and improbable. He alsodraws our attention to the fact that applicant nos.5 and 6 are residentsof Erandol and Amalner respectively. He has further submitted thatalthough the incident is stated to be occurred in the Court premiseswhere many persons were present, respondent no.1 could not find anysingle independent witness. He points out that the investigating officerhas merely recorded statements of respondent no.2, her parents andbrother and her uncle, Prakash Khanderao Wagh, who has stated thathe learnt about the alleged incident from his brother Prabhakar i.e.father of respondent no.2. He states that since the incident had neveroccurred, the prosecution could not find single independent witness. Hehas also referred to FIR to contend that the allegations are lacking inmaterial particulars and rather absolutely vague and omnibus in nature.Specific role is not attributed to any of the applicants.4.As against this, Shri A.R. Kale, learned APP appearing forrespondent no.1 and Shri Akram Inamdar, learned appointed counselfor respondent no.2 contend that the FIR discloses cognizable offenceand as such, the present application should be rejected since the 53592.2024APPLN.odtcorrectness of allegations cannot be adjudicated in the presentproceedings.5.Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of therecord of the case, we find that allegation in the FIR is that at about4:30 p.m., the present applicants and deceased husband of respondentno.2 had beaten up respondent no.2, her father and brother. It isundisputed that there was matrimonial discord between respondentno.2 and her deceased husband. All the family members of theestranged husband have been implicated in the matter. Applicant Nos.5and 6 are not residents of Dhule. The mother-in-law and father-in-lawof respondent no.2 are senior citizens, who were around 60 and 65years old approximately on the date of incident. Applicant No.4, who ismarried sister-in-law, is also implicated in the matter along with thehusbands of other two sisters-in-law. What is surprising is that althoughthe incident is alleged to have occurred in bright day-light during Courtworking hours, the investigating officer could not find a singleindependent witness in support of allegations in the FIR. Charge-Sheetalso does not indicate that the victims of offence i.e. respondent no.2,her father and brother were referred for medical examination althoughthere is allegation of sustained assault although not by means of anyweapon. Allegations in the FIR are not confidence inspiring. Story in 63592.2024APPLN.odtthe FIR appears to be concocted. 6.Having regard to the material collected during the courseof investigation, we find that the material on record is absolutelyinadequate for drawing home the charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Courthas held in the cases of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others Vs.Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported in AIR 1988 SC709 and Satish Mehra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and others reportedin AIR 2013 SC 506 that if the material collected during the course ofinvestigation is very scanty and grossly inadequate to establish thecharge and is of such nature that the prosecution appears to be boundto fail, it will be just and valid ground for quashing of criminalproceeding.7.We must also take notice of the fact that there was maritaldiscord between respondent no.2 and her husband. They werecontesting several litigation against each other. The principles that arelaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appreciation of material inmatrimonial disputes need to be taken notice of and applied in the factsof the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned in thematter of Preeti Gupta and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and othersreported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 that pragmatic realities in matrimonial 73592.2024APPLN.odtdispute should be taken into consideration while dealing with criminalcases arising out of matrimonial discord. The Hon’ble Supreme Courthas taken notice of phenomenal rise in criminal cases arising out ofmatrimonial discord whereof the family members and near relatives ofthe husband are implicated in the criminal cases. In the matter of G.V.Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693, theHon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of outburst in matrimonialdisputes where elders in the family, who can mediate to resolve thematrimonial discord, was also arrayed as accused. In the case ofMamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and othersreported in 2024 SCC Online SC 127, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasdirected that due care and caution should be exercised while dealingwith cases which prima facie appeared to be frivolous and vexatiousand in the backdrop of matrimonial dispute, it is held that in suchcases, the Court dealing with petition for quashing of FIR should notrestrict itself to reading the contents of FIR alone. It is held that in suchcases parties often exercise due care and caution to draft FIRs in orderto make out all the ingredients of the offence/s. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt has, therefore, directed that the contents of the FIR should beviewed in the light of other surrounding circumstances. It is furtherheld that general and omnibus allegations must be ignored. Similarview is also expressed in the matter of Dara Lakhshmi Narayana and 83592.2024APPLN.odtothers Vs. State of Telangana in S.LP. (Cri.) No.16239/2024. TheHon’ble Supreme Court has again directed that due care and cautionshould be exercised by the High Courts in order to prevent abuse ofcriminal law.8.Although the above judgments are delivered with respectto cases under Section 498-A of the IPC, we are of the consideredopinion that ratio thereof can also be applied to the present case, whichalso arises out of matrimonial discord. In the present case also, all thefamily members of the estranged husband have been implicated. Theallegations in the FIR need to be viewed in the backdrop of the fact thatnot a single independent witness could be found although the incidentis alleged to have occurred in the Court premises during the courtworking hours. It is also important to note that the alleged incident isnot stated to have occurred in a secluded or remote place in the Courtpremises. Perusal of spot panchnama demonstrates that spot of allegedincident is right in the middle of Court premises and immediatelyinfront of main gate. The spot panchnama shows existence of two courtbuildings in the vicinity on the northern and eastern side and main gateexactly infront of the spot of alleged incident on the western side. Thefact that independent witnesses were available is also apparent fromthe FIR where it is alleged that the victims were saved due to 93592.2024APPLN.odtintervention of general public. It is obvious that lawyers, police persons,stamp vendors, clerks etc., would be present at the relevant time andsuch persons who are regularly and continuously present in Courtpremises could be easily examined. It is in these backdrop that failureto find single independent witness assumes greater significance.9.In the light of aforesaid, we are, therefore, of theconsidered opinion that the F.I.R. and consequent criminal prosecutionagainst the applicants need to be quashed in the interest of justice.Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)F.I.R. No.74/2019 registered against applicants on 02.03.2019with Dhule City Police Station, for the offences punishable underSections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian PenalCode and S.C.C. No.1566/2020 pending before the learned ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Dhule are hereby quashed against applicantsnamely (i) Yashodabai Devidas Baisane, (ii) Devidas Narayan Baisane,(iii) Rajendra Devidas Baisane, (iv) Meena Ramesh More, (v) AnilAnanda Sonawane and (vi) Ashok Namdev Salunkhe. 103592.2024APPLN.odt(iii)The fees of learned Advocate Mr.Akram Inamdar appointed torepresent respondent no.2, is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FiveThousand), to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.[ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/