High Court
Facts
13331-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3331 OF 20231.Tushar Bhavsingh Maher,Age : 36 years, Occu: School Teacher,2.Bhavsingh Kanhiram Maher,Age 67 years, Occu : Farmer,3.Mirabai Bavsingh Maher,Age : 63 years, Occu – Housewife,4.Mahendrasingh Bhavsingh Maher,Age : 39 years, Occu- Farmer,All r/o: At Takvade, Post. Wade,Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon,5Kavita Shamsingh Gothwal,Age : 37 years, Occu- Tutor6.Shamsingh Narayansingh GothwalAge : 50 years, Occu : Legal Practitioner,Both R/o: Plot No.28(b), Sy. No.7,Vidyut Nagar Housing Society,Near Chinar Garden, Jaising Pura,Padegaon, Aurangabad ...Applicants-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Pachora Police Station,Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.2.Dipali Tushar Maher,Age : 30 years, Occu : Housewife,R/o. Sai Park, Bhadgaon Road,Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon...RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
93331-2023.odtmembers recorded on 22.03.2023 but also in the light of otherattending circumstances, i.e., the FIR being lodged after a period of 13years from the date of marriage, lack of particulars with respect toalleged demand, except for one date, i.e.,15.08.2016 which aroundseven years prior to the date of FIR and deliberate over implication ininvolving the parents-in-law, brother-in-law, married sister-in-law andher husband in the matter coupled with the general tenor of the FIR.14.In view of the aforesaid, the allegations regarding demand fordowry are not prima facie acceptable. They are improbable and notconfidence inspiring in nature.15.In the light of above, we are of the considered opinion that thecontents of FIR and other material on record is not adequate to makeout a prima facie case against the applicants for the offence punishableunder Section 498-A of the IPC. The other Sections are non-cognizable.In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is necessary topreserve the ends of justice to quash the FIR and resultant criminal caseagainst the applicants. In the result, we pass the following order :- ORDER(i) The application is allowed. 103331-2023.odt(ii) FIR No.279/2023 dated 27.07.2023 registered by PachoraPolice Station, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon for the offencepunishable under Sections. 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of the IPC and Regular Criminal Case No.210 of2023 are quashed against applicant No.1 - Tushar BhavsinghMaher, Applicant No.2 - Bhavsingh Kanhiram Maher,applicant No.3 - Mirabai Bavsingh Maher, applicant No.4 -Mahendrasingh Bhavsingh Maher, applicant No. 5 - KavitaShamsingh Gothwal and applicant No.6 - ShamsinghNarayansingh Gothwal.[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEA.G.Narwade
Arguments
23331-2023.odt...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. D. S. PatilA.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State : Mr. A. M. PhuleAdvocate for Respondent No.2- Mr. Narayan Chavan h/f. Mr. H. P.Randive …CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2025, 2024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :1.The present application is filed under Section 482 of Code ofCriminal Procedure in order to challenge FIR No.279/2023 dated27.07.2023 registered with Pachora Police Station, District Jalgaon forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read withSection 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.2.The Petition came to be amended in order to challenge RegularCriminal Case No.210 of 2023 which is pending on the file of thelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pachora. 3.Respondent No.2 - informant is related to the applicants asunder:-Applicant No.1 – HusbandApplicant No.2 – Father-in-law 33331-2023.odtApplicant No.3 – Mother-in-lawApplicant No.4 – Brother-in-lawApplicant No.5 – Sister-in-law (Married)Applicant No.6 – Husband of Sister-in-law4.The marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 wassolemnized on 20.12.2010. The couple is blessed with two childrenwho were born somewhere in the years 2011 and 2016. ApplicantNo.1-Husband is employed as a teacher in Zilla Parishad School.5.Respondent No.2 has lodged FIR levelling allegations thatapplicant No.1 is addicted to liquor and he used to beat herintermittently under influence of liquor, shortly after a few days ofmarriage. She alleges that the in-laws used to illtreat and insult hersince she was not adequately educated and qualified, according tothem. It is alleged that they had demanded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs fromher parents for the purpose of purchasing a plot. As against applicantNo.1-husband she states that she was living with him at the placeswhere he was posted for the purpose of employment from time to time.She alleges that he used to intermittently beat her and also the childrenunder influence of liquor. As regards other applicants, the omnibusallegations are made that they had demanded a sum or Rs.15 lakhs 43331-2023.odtalong with applicant No.1 and that they used to abuse and illtreat her. 6.Shri. D. S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the applicantssubmits that the marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2was solemnized in the year 2010. The couple was blessed with twochildren, born in the year 2011 and 2016. Applicant No.1 is a teacherin Zilla Parishad School. He states that the nuclear family of applicantNo.1 and respondent No.2 never resided with applicant Nos.2 to 4,since, applicant No.1 was posted at difference places from time to timeduring the course of his service. As regards applicant No.5, she ismarried Sister-in-law and applicant No.6 is her husband. ApplicantNos.5 and 6 never resided with applicant No.1 and respondent No.2.He states that the entire FIR is tainted and falsehood. He pointed outthat respondent No.2 had left the matrimonial house on 06.02.2023 onaccount of which applicant No.1 was constrained to file a missingcomplaint at Pachora Police Station. The police authorities hadconducted investigation and during the course of investigation,statement of respondent No.2 was recorded on 22.03.2023. In herstatement to the police authorities, respondent No.2 has admitted thatshe had left the matrimonial home on 06.02.2023 and after a fewmonths thereafter, on 27.07.2023, she has lodged the impugned FIR. 53331-2023.odt7.Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the allegationsare vague and lacking in particulars. As regards applicant Nos.2 to 6 hestates that the allegations are also omnibus apart from being vague andgeneral in nature. 8.Per contra Shri. A. M. Phule, learned A.P.P. and Mr. Chavan,learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that specific and directallegations have been levelled with respect of demand for dowry. Theypoint out that allegations regarding demand of dowry Rs.15 lakhs arelevelled by respondent No.2 against all the applicants. As regardsapplicant no.1 they further pointed out that there are allegationsagainst him with respect to frequent incidents of beating underinfluence of liquor. With respect to the incident dated 06.02.2023 theysubmit that respondent No.2 was fed up with the harassment meted outby applicant No.1 and was therefore force to leave the house. 9.Having heard the respective submissions of the Counsel and onperusal of record with able assistance of learned Counsel, we find thatthere are no allegations worth mentioning against applicant Nos.5 and6, the married sister-in-law and her husband. It is merely stated thatapplicant Nos.5 and 6 used to visit the house intermittently and used toabuse respondent No.2 unnecessary. However, particulars in this regard 63331-2023.odtare completely missing. Leave aside the date and time, tentative periodof the alleged illtreatment is also not mentioned. There is absolutely nomaterial against applicant Nos.5 and 6. We are of the consideredopinion that they have been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. 10.As regards the applicant Nos.2 to 4, i.e., parents-in-law andbrother-in-law, it may be stated that applicant No.1 being a ZillaParishad Schood Teacher was posted at different places during thecourse of his employment. It is admitted that respondent No.2 wasstaying with her children at the places where applicant No.1 wasposted. The periods during which applicant No.1 and his nuclear familyhave resided together with applicant Nos.2 to 4 is not clearly specified.It is apparent from the FIR that they were not residing together in asmuch as the applicant Nos.2 to 4 were not residing with applicant No.1at various places where he was transferred and posted from time totime. Allegation is levelled that applicant Nos.2 to 4 had along withapplicant No.1 made demand of dowry of Rs.15 lakhs for the purposeof purchasing plot and further that they used to abuse and illtreat heron the ground that she was not adequately qualified. The allegationsare way to general and vague. Just as in the case of applicant Nos.5 and6, respondent No.2 is also not able to provide tentative periods ofalleged harassment by applicant Nos.2 to 4. This needs to be viewed in 73331-2023.odtthe backdrop that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 andthe FIR is lodged 13 years thereafter in the year 2023. It appears thatthe relations between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 strained,period of time as a consequence of which the parents and brother soalso married sister and her husband have been implicated in the matter.The material on record even if accepted on its face value is notsufficient to sustain prosecution against applicant Nos.2 to 4.11.As regards applicant No.1, i.e., the husband, respondent No.2 hasalleged that he was addicted to liquor and under influence of liquor heused to beat her as well as their children. She alleges that suchincidents have occurred on several occasions. She alleges that herhusband had made a demand of Rs.15 lakhs for purchasing plot fromtime to time. She refers to an incident that had occurred on 15.08.2016when the applicant No.1- husband again made demand of Rs.15 lakhsunder influence of liquor and had beaten respondent No.2.12.Apart from the alleged incident dated 15.08.2016, particularswith respect to tentative period of other incident of harassment are notmentioned. 13.The allegations against the husband / applicant No.1 and the 83331-2023.odtother applicants also need to be viewed in the light of the othercircumstances of the case. The marriage of respondent No.2 andapplicant No.1 was solemnized in the year 2010. The FIR is lodgedafter a period of around 13 years. Respondent No.2 had left thematrimonial house on 06.02.2023. Applicant No.1 had lodged amissing report in that regard. The statement of respondent No.2 wasrecorded after she was found by the police in which she has stated thatshe had left the house due to constant illtreatment by the husbandincluding acts of incident of beating under the influence of liquor. Shehas stated in the statement that applicant No.1 also doubted hercharacter. However, in the statement dated 22.03.2023 she has notlevelled allegations regarding demand of dowry by the applicants. TheFIR is lodged on 27.07.2023 that is after a short period of around fourmonths from the date of said statement. The statements of father,brother, mother, cousin were also recorded on 22.03.2023 afterrespondent No.2 was found. In the said statement also there is noallegation with respect to demand of dowry. It is therefore apparentthat the allegations with respect to demand for dowry have beenlevelled only in the light of matrimonial discord. The allegationslevelled by respondent No.2 regarding demand for dowry do not inspireconfidence. We say so not only on the ground that the allegation is notappearing in the statements of respondent No.2 and her family