High Court
Facts
1 WP / 1283 / 2023+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1283 OF 20231] Sagar Dheeraj Shinde2] Pooja Sagar Shinde.. Petitioners Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through Tamalwadi Police Station, Tal : Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad2] Sukeshani Abhijeet Shinde.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1292 OF 2023Anjali Dheeraj Shinde.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Through Tamalwadi Police Station, Tal. : Tuljapur, Dist : Osmanabad2] Sukeshani Abhijit Shinde.. Respondent...Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Rahul A. Tambe (Cri.W.P./1283/2023)Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Abhijit C. Darandale(Cri.W.P./1292/2023)APP for the respondent – State : Mrs. V.N. Patil – JadhavAdvocate for respondent no. 2 in both Petitions : Mr. N.B. Jadhav... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 30 APRIL 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :These are separate writ petitions preferred by differentaccused seeking quashment of the same crime being Crime no. I-104of 2023 of Tamalwadi Police Station, Taluka – Tuljapur, District –Dharashiv for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504 2 WP / 1283 / 2023+ and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at the instance ofrespondent no. 2 and consequent Regular Criminal Case no. 344 of2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Tuljapur.2.Writ petition no. 1283 of 2023 is preferred by respondentno.2’s husband’s brother and brother’s wife whereas the other writpetition has been preferred by the mother of the husband.3.At the joint request of the parties, both the matters areheard simultaneously and finally.4.The allegations as can be made out from the chargesheetare to the effect that respondent no.2’s marriage was solemnized on16-06-2021. She cohabited in the matrimonial home at Chinchwadbarely for 54 days. During that time, the husband and other petitionerssubjected her to physical and mental harassment. Respondent no. 2got to know that her husband was having an affair. When shequestioned him about it, he assaulted her. Her mother in law and thesister in law made her to perform the domestic chores calling her maid.Brother in law also used to abuse her. One day, she was driven outand the husband and these petitioners locked the door and went awaywithout disclosing the destination. She went back to her parental homeat Pimpala Budruk, Taluka – Tuljapur. Lastly, it is alleged that on13-04-2022, her brother, paternal uncle and brother in law tried to meet 3 WP / 1283 / 2023+ her husband and the petitioners to convince them, however, they flatlydeclared that they were no longer interested in allowing her to cohabit.The FIR was lodged on 11-07-2023.5.Learned advocates for the petitioners would vehementlysubmit that it is yet another instance revealing as to how pursuant to amatrimonial dispute, the destitute try to rope in all the relatives of thehusband just to wreak vengeance. They would submit that respondentno. 2 cohabited in the matrimonial home only for 23 days. They wouldpoint out that she had served the husband with a notice reply dated17-09-2021 through her advocate in response to the notice served toher by her husband. Copy of both these are produced in writ petitionno. 1283 of 2023.6.Learned advocates would submit that it is only after suchexchange of the notice reply that the FIR has been lodged as anafterthought. They would also submit that according to her replynotice, the marriage was solemnized on 16-06-2021 and she was sentback to parental home on 08-07-2021 and it does not expresslymention about she having ever returned to the matrimonial homethereafter. The notice reply merely states that when she telephonedher husband on 16-07-2021, her husband initially promised to take herback on 20-07-2021, however, he did not turn up. When she againtried to contact him, he did not respond. It was informed that he was
Legal Reasoning
4 WP / 1283 / 2023+ admitted in a hospital and all the petitioners abused her when shereached the matrimonial home on 29-07-2021 it was found locked.When she called her husband, he refused to allow her to resumecohabitation. She then reached the police station but the husband didnot oblige. They would thus point out that respondent no.2 hadcohabited in the matrimonial home barely for 23 days.7.Learned advocates for the petitioners would also advertour attention to the copy of the complaint filed by the mother-in-law, thepetitioner in writ petition no. 1292 of 2023, to the police commissionerdated 05-08-2021 complaining about mental harassment due to thequarrel between respondent no. 2 and her husband. They would,therefore, submit that all the allegations are against the husband andthe petitioners have been falsely roped in without there being anymaterial. They would, lastly, submit that statements of the witnessesare stereotyped and do not make out precise and specific allegationsagainst any of the petitioners in subjecting respondent no.2 to cruelty.8.Per contra, learned APP and learned advocate forrespondent no. 2 would strongly oppose the petitions. They wouldsubmit that prima facie there are allegations attributing specific role toeach of these petitioners. Chargesheet has been filed and theprosecution deserves to be extended an opportunity to substantiate thecharge by leading evidence. It is not a matter of false implication. 5 WP / 1283 / 2023+ 9.We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers.10.Admittedly, respondent no.2’s marriage was solemnized on16-06-2021. According to the FIR and the statements of the witnesses,she cohabited with the husband in the matrimonial home for 54 days.However, a copy of the notice reply sent by her to her husband inresponse to the notice expressly mentions that she was sent back tothe parental home on 08-07-2021 and there is absolutely nothing in thenotice reply as to when thereafter she could resume cohabitation in thematrimonial home. This being a copy of notice reply sent by her, thegenuineness of which has not been controverted by her by filing anycounter affidavit, we have no reason to discard this copy of the noticereply purportedly issued by her through her advocate, being a materialof impeccable character. It is, therefore, abundantly clear thatrespondent no. 2 cohabited with the husband in the matrimonial homenot even for a month.11.Once it is borne in mind and is abundantly clear that therespondent no. 2 could have shared the house with these petitionersbarely for few days, less than a month, the allegations in the FIR andthe statements of the witnesses who happen to be her father, mother,sister Sumitra and brother in law Vitthal Jaidev Kate, which are inverbatim the same, do not attribute any precise and specific role tothese petitioners. Though it has been vaguely mentioned that the 6 WP / 1283 / 2023+ mother in law and the sister in law were making her work like a maidand the brother in law was hurling abuses, in our considered view, theperiod for which respondent no. 2 cohabited with these petitionersunder the same roof was so less, that there should have been specificand precise date and time when the ill-treatment was meted out. Whenthe period was barely of 23 days, it is also highly improbable and,therefore, unbelievable that all these petitioners could have subjectedher to any cruelty or could have taken part in any harassment metedout to her.12.It needs to be borne in mind that even according to the FIRand the statements of the witnesses, respondent no. 2 got to know thather husband was having an affair and when she questioned him, hehad assaulted her. This seems to be the genesis for the maritaldiscord. If that be so, in our considered view, there is sufficient room tobelieve that respondent no.2 and her parental side relatives haveensured that even these petitioners who are the mother in law, brotherand brother’s wife of respondent no.2’s husband are put to someharassment, to wreak vengeance. These are matters squarely coveredby Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand; (2010) 7 SCC 667, GeetaMehrotra V. State of U.P.; (2012) 10 SCC 741 and KahkashanKausar V. State of Bihar; (2022) 6 SCC 599 and it would be abuse ofthe process of law to make the petitioners face the prosecution with thequality of material in the chargesheet as discussed herein-above and 7 WP / 1283 / 2023+ the cases of the petitioners fit in the parameters laid down in the matterof State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.13.Both the petitions are allowed.14. Crime no. I-104 of 2023 of Tamalwadi Police Station,Taluka – Tuljapur, District – Dharashiv for the offences punishableunder section 498-A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Coderegistered at the instance of respondent no. 2 and consequent RegularCriminal Case no. 344 of 2023 pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Tuljapur are quashed and set aside to theextent of the present petitioners. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/