High Court · 2023
Legal Reasoning
1 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3301 OF 20231. Chandrarekha W/o. Nagnath Giri,Age: 80 years, Occu: Nil, 2. Nitin Nagnath Giri,Age: 39 years, Occu: Defence Service,3. Chaya W/o. Nitin Giri,Age: 32 years, Occu: Housewife, Applicant no. 1 to 3 are R/o. Kohima lines, Near Apna Bazar Complex, Camp, Pune-411001.4. Hemant S/o. Kisan Giri,Age: 32 years, Occu: Fabrication, R/o. Near Maruti Mandir, Post. Para, Tq. Washi, Dist: Osmanabad. 5. Jayashree Mhalappa Ghodke,Age: 54 years, Occu: Professor, R/o. Punyashlok Nivas, Near Hanuman Mandir,Naldurga, Tq. Tuljapur,Dist: Osmanabad.6. Pallavi Rohidas Gadhe,Age: 35 years, Occu: GST Inspector, R/o. Flat no. 27, Aurangabad Hsg Society, Jay Bhavani Road, Behind Mhasoba Mandir, Jayabai Colony, Nashik Road Camp, Nashik, Tq. & Dist: Nashik.… Applicants (Ori. Accused no. 2 to 7 in FIR)Versus 1. State of Maharashtra,Through Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai-1.2. The District Superintendent of police,Latur, Tq. and Dist: Latur.
Legal Reasoning
2 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt3. The Police Inspector,Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur City, Tq. & Dist: Latur. 4. Smt. Shital Anup Giri,Age: 33 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. Para, Tq. Vashi, Dist: Osmanabad Presently residing at Shri Datta Niwas, Sambhaji Nagar, Khandgaon Road, Near to Ganpati Temple, Latur Mob. No. 9834290228.… Respondents…Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Mr. Dilip B. Rode and Mr. Sanket S.Kulkarni for the Applicants. Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State. Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (through V.C.).…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.DATE :17th APRIL, 2025JUDGMENT:- (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learnedAdvocate appearing for the respective parties finally, by consent. 2.Applicant Nos.1 to 4 are the relatives of husband ofRespondent No.4-informant, who has filed FIR vide C.R. No.362 of2023 dated 21st July 2023, registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station,Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant No.5 isprofessor and not related to the husband of the informant. Similarly, 3 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtApplicant No.6 is alleged to be friend of husband of the complainantwho is Government Servant. Respondent No.4-complainant filed FIRagainst her husband and the Applicants herein alleging that herhusband-Anup Nagnath Giri and the Applicants have assaulted and ill-treated her after her marriage. It is stated in the complaint that hermarriage with Anup was solemnized on 3rd January 2016. Her fatherhad given Rs.7,00,000/- as a dowry along with 20 Tolas of goldornaments. It is stated that she was treated well by her husband andin-laws for one year after the marriage. However, since January 2017,her husband started insisting her that she should appear for MPSCexamination, for which she should join coaching classes. Accordingly,she was enrolled for MPSC classes, though she did not like to study, shewas forced to study by her husband. It is alleged that due to insistenceof her husband that she should attend the MPSC classes, she wasmentally depressed. It is also alleged that Applicant No.6 one Pallavi R.Gadhe was her husband’s friend prior to their marriage, was also inGovernment Employment. It is alleged that Applicant No.6 startedinterfering with her marriage, due to which, there was a discordbetween herself and her husband. 3.It is further alleged in the complaint that the Applicantsherein have abused her since she was not in Government Employment 4 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtand not of same standard, like her husband who had passed MPSC andwas working as Naib Tehsildar. She was also threatened by Applicantsthat they will perform second marriage of her husband with the girlwho has qualified MPSC examination. It is alleged that she was manytimes abused and assaulted by the Applicants and driven out of houseby them. She informed about the ill-treatment meted out to her, to herfather. Though a meeting was conducted to thrash out the differencesbetween herself and her husband, her husband instead of taking her toreside along with him, he had left her at her in-laws house at Para,District Osmanabad and he himself had gone to Nagpur, at the place ofhis posting. It is alleged by her that she was ill-treated by her husbandand his relatives, which constrained her to leave the matrimonialhouse. Thereafter, she has approached Bharosa Cell, Women’s AssistantCell/Crime Branch Office of Superintendent of Police, Latur on 6th July2023, for filing complaint against the husband and his relatives. Atlast, she has filed the FIR on 21st July 2023, against the husband andpresent Applicants. 4.It is the contention of the Applicants that they are not at allconcerned with the matrimonial life of the complainant along with herhusband-Anup. Applicant Nos.1 and 3, are the relatives of the husbandof informant who are residing separately in Pune, due to employment 5 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtof Applicant No.2 in military service. Applicant No.1 is the old agemother of Applicant No.2 and she is residing with Applicant No.2 forher medical treatment. Applicant No.2 is serving in the Indian Army.Since last four years, he is posted at various places in Maharashtra andApplicant No.3 is the wife of Applicant No.2, who resides along withhim at the places where he is stationed during his service tenure.Applicant No.4 is a cousin of Applicant No.2 and the husband ofinformant. He has no concern with the family of husband of informantand he is residing separately. Applicant No.5 is the professor, who isresiding at Naldurga, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, which is faraway from Palghar where the complainant resided along with herhusband-Anup. Therefore, there was no question of any ill-treatmentbeing given by Applicant No.5 to the complainant from such a longdistance. Similarly, Applicant No.6 is working as a GST Inspector atNashik, which is also far away from Palghar, where the complainantlast resided together with her husband. 5.The Applicant Nos.5 and 6 are neither blood relative norin-laws of the informant. Section 498-A would not be attracted in caseof both the Applicants. After filing of the present criminal applicationseeking quashment of FIR vide C.R. No.362 of 2023, the chargesheetcame to be filed in the present case, therefore, Applicants have soughtamendment, with a prayer seeking directions to quash and set aside 6 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtR.C.C. No.132 of 2024 pending before the learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class, Latur. 6.It is the contention of the Applicants that none of them haveresided with the complainant, inspite of that she has made wildallegations against all of them, which is nothing but abuse of process oflaw. The Advocate for the Applicants submits that the allegations in theFIR against the present Applicants are general in nature. There is nospecific role attributed to any of the Applicants in the alleged physicalor mental harassment of the complainant. It is contended by learnedAdvocate that, though offence under Section 323 is alleged to havecommitted, there is no particular incident cited to support theallegations of physical injury caused to the complainant. It is also notsupported by any medical record of the complainant. 7.The learned Advocate for the Applicants has drawn ourattention to the notice issued by the husband of the complainant dated19th June 2022, seeking divorce from the complainant. The notice wasreplied by the complainant on 4th July 2022, wherein, she has shownher willingness to cohabitate with the husband and has refused to grantdivorce. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicants, thefiling of FIR is nothing but an after thought by the complainant. Noticewas issued by the husband of complainant on 19th June 2022 and 7 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtinspite of showing her willingness to cohabitate with him, in her replydated 4th July 2022, the complainant has filed FIR on 21st July 2023.This itself makes it obvious that merely in order to harass theApplicants, the complainant has filed the FIR. Learned Advocate forthe Applicants further submits that, though the complainant was awarethat her husband has filed divorce proceedings before the learned CivilJudge Senior Division, Bhoom, District Osmanabad being HinduMarriage Petition No.27 of 2023 dated 6th May 2023. She has notreferred to the divorce proceedings in her complaint. 8.It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Applicantsthat filing of FIR and roping the Applicants by naming them in the FIRis nothing short of wreaking vengeance against the husband for filingdivorce proceedings against the complainant. The criminal prosecutionis used as tool by the complainant for causing harassment and privatevendatta and with an ulterior motive to pressurize the husband andsettle score with him. Though all the Applicants are residing atdifferent places. It is claimed that all of them have harassed thecomplainant, while she was residing with her husband as well as at hermatrimonial house. 9.Mr. Shrikant Kawade, learned Advocate appearing forRespondent No.4 has opposed the prayers made by the Applicants. 8 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtAccording to him, Respondent No.4 was pressurize and traumatised bythe Applicants, since she was not preparing for the MPSC examinationand she was not a good match for her husband. According to them,they wanted to well educated and MPSC qualified girl, who would suitAnup. Though, she was not interested in appearing for the MPSCexamination, she was forced to prepare for the exam and attend theclasses, which is nothing short of cruelty. The Applicants have manytimes assaulted her and abused her on that count. Hence, consideringthat the chargesheet is already filed, the prayer of the Applicants doesnot deserves consideration. 10.Mr. Dayama, learned APP for State has also opposed theapplication on the ground that sufficient evidence has been collectedduring the investigation, on the basis of which, chargesheet has beenfiled. According to the learned APP, the statements of the complainant,her father Vyankat Dhanrajgir Giri, her uncle-Gokulnir Dhanrajgir Giri,her brother-Sachin Vyankat Giri and the statement of independentwitness Shri. Anil Mohanrao Karad, who is the friend of her father,have supported the allegations made by the complainant. It is,therefore, prayed by learned APP that the criminal application deservesto be dismissed. 11.We have heard the respective parties and we have perused 9 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtthe FIR as well as chargesheet, which is placed on record subsequently.Sofar as the present Applicants are concerned, from the perusal of theFIR, the allegations made against Applicant Nos.1 to 5 is that after oneyear of the marriage, they have abused and assaulted the informant onthe ground that she has not qualified MPSC examination and she wasnot of their standard. She was threatened that they will performsecond marriage of her husband. It is also claimed by her that she wasassaulted with the fists and blows. She was starved and mentallyharassed, eventually, she was driven out of the house by the Applicants.12.Upon perusal of the FIR, there is no specific allegation madeagainst each of the Applicants. The allegations are omnibus andcommon allegations are made against all the Applicants. Though, thecomplainant was residing with her husband at Palghar during thatperiod and the Applicants were residing at different places which wasat quite a distance from Palghar, yet allegations are made that theApplicants have assaulted and abused the complainant on the groundthat she is not well qualified and she was not a good match for herhusband. There are no specific instances or incident cited by thecomplainant that would support her allegations of offences underSection 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the IPC. 13.It is evident from record that the husband of the complainant 10 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odthad sent a notice of divorce on 19th June 2022 and, thereafter, he hasfiled Hindu marriage petition for divorce on 6th May 2023. It is onlyafter filing of the divorce petition, the FIR has been filed on 21st July2023 by the complainant from which, it can be easily gathered that thefiling of FIR is nothing, but a tool which is used by the complainant forpressurizing the Applicants. Upon the perusal of statement recorded bythe Investigating Officer during the investigation. It is evident thatwitnesses have given statements which has similar, and monotonous.There are no specific allegations as such against each of the Applicants.14.The Applicants have made averment in the application thatall of them are residing at distant and different places which is far awayfrom Palghar where the complainant resided along with her husband-Anup. Applicant Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Pune. Applicant No.4, whois the cousin of Applicant No.2, is residing separately from the familyand carrying on his own business. Applicant No.5 is also residing atNaldurga, who is not related to the husband. While Applicant No.6 isresiding at Nashik due to her service as GST Inspector. Thus,implicating all the Applicants in the complaint is nothing, but abuse ofprocess of law. 15.Considering the allegations which are vague and no specificrole is attributed to each of the Applicants independently we do not 11 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtfind any substance in the allegations made against the Applicants in theFIR. 16.Sofar as allegation of offence under Section 498-A isconcerned, it is attracted only in case of husband of complainant andhis relatives. In the present case, except Applicant Nos.1 to 4, none ofthem are the relatives of her husband. Even Applicant Nos.1 to 3, theyare residing at a far away place, from where they could not havemeted out any ill-treatment or subjected the complainant to cruelty asalleged. 17.Similarly, allegations of offences under Sections 504 and 506of the IPC are not supported by the contents of the FIR against any ofthe Applicants. Similarly, Section 323 of IPC is also not attracted in thepresent case, since, there is no averment to that effect in the complaint,about voluntarily causing, hurt to the complainant. It is also notsupported by any medical certificate. 18.We do not find any substance in the allegation made againstthe Applicants in the FIR as well as in the chargesheet filed against theApplicants in R.C.C. No.132 of 2024 pending before the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Latur. 19.Time and again this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court 12 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odthas frowned upon implication of distant relative of husband, in theoffences registered by the wife making wild accusations against them.In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of DaraLakshmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana & Anr.1, had occasionto deal with similar circumstances, the observations made in paragraphNo.25 of the judgment reads thus:-“25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminalcase arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegationsindicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is awell-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is oftena tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family whendomestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalisedand sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence orparticularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminalprosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to preventmisuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessaryharassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellantNos. 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No. 1 havebeen living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonialhouse of appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein. Hence, theycannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be anabuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegationsmade against each of them.”20.While commenting upon the rampant misuse of Section 498Aof IPC, which was intended to curb the cruelty against woman beingused as a tool for unleashing the personal vendatta against the husbandand his family, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that making vagueand generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if notscrutinized, will lead to misuse of legal process and encouragement foruse of tactics by wife and her family. Sometimes recourse is taken to12024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 13 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odtinfluence Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his familyin order to seek compliance with unreasonable demands of a wife.Consequently, this Court has time and again cautioned againstimplicating the husband and his family, in absence of a clear prima-facie, case against them and resultantly, the FIR filed by the wifeagainst the relatives of husband has been quashed and set aside. 21.In the present case, there is no prima-facie case made outagainst any of the Applicants, since there is no specific allegation madeagainst each of the Applicants. Continuation of the criminalproceedings against the Applicants would amount to abuse of processof law, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numberof judicial pronouncements. In absence of specific role attributable tothe accused named in the FIR, it would be unjust if such persons areforced to go through the tribulation of the trial on the basis of omnibusallegations. 22.Thus, we are satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise thepowers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The application, therefore,deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed:-O R D E R(i)The application stands allowed and disposed of. 14 32-APPLN.3301.2023-J.odt(ii)The proceedings in R.C.C. No.132 of 2024, pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur,arising out of FIR bearing C.R. No.362 of 2023,registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,stands quashed and set aside to the extent of theseApplicants.(iii)Rule made absolute in the above terms. [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]Tauseef