High Court
Facts
13347.2023APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3347 OF 20231.Pawan Trimbak Salunke Age : 24 years, Occ : Agri.,R/o Nagapur (Khurd),Tq. & Dist. Beed.2.Trimbak S/o Keshav SalunkeAge : 68 years, Occ : Agri.,R/o As above.3.Sita W/o Trimbak SalunkeAge : 65 years, Occ : Household,R/o As above.4.Rohini W/o Datta KadamAge : 38 years, Occ : Household,R/o Malasjawala,Tq. & Dist.Beed.5.Gita W/o Sidheshwar GhadgeAge : 35 years, Occ : Household,R/o Near Zunjarneta PressMalives, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.6.Seema W/o Arun RautAge : 31 years, Occ : Household,R/o Malasjawala,Tq. & Dist. Beed.7.Arun Khanderao RautAge : 37 years, Occ : Agri.,R/o Malasjawala,Tq. & Dist. Beed...APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police InspectorDharur Police Station,Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.
Legal Reasoning
53347.2023APPLN.odtrespondent No.2 was wearing and had forced her to leave the housealong with her father and brother. This incident had allegedly occurredin presence of applicant Nos.2 and 3. In view of the aforesaid specificallegations in the F.I.R. which also find place in the statements of thewitnesses recorded by the prosecution, we find that this is not a fit casefor quashing of F.I.R. or criminal prosecution with respect to applicantNos.2 and 3. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations can not betested in the present proceedings filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7.As regards applicant Nos.4 to 6, they are married sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. Applicant No.7 is husband of applicant No.6.Perusal of F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses will demonstrate thatthere are no specific allegations of harassment, illtreatment or crueltyagainst them. The only statement in the F.I.R. is that applicant Nos.4 to7 had also stated that parents of respondent No.2 did not incurappropriate expenditure in the marriage and had asked her to bring anamount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents in order to enable applicantNo.1 to start his business. However, the tentative period of allegeddemand, place of demand and such particulars are pertinently absent inthe F.I.R. It is not clear as to whether demand was made by all of themtogether or individually. The allegation is absolutely vague. It appearsthat due to strained relationship with applicant No.1, his sisters and
Arguments
23347.2023APPLN.odt2.Mandakini W/o Pawan SalunkeAge : 22 years, Occ : Household,At present R/o Dhunkawad No.1,Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed...RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicants : Mr.N.L. JadhavAPP for Respondent- State : Mrs. R.P. GourAdvocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. S.R. Kedar…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 2nd JANUARY, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The applicants in the present matter are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, married sisters-in-law and husband of one of themarried sisters-in-law of respondent No.2.2.The marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized withapplicant no.1 on 11.06.2020. Respondent No.2 has lodged F.I.R.against applicants, being F.I.R. No.193/2023 with Dharur PoliceStation, Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed on 24.06.2023, for the offencespunishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Prohibition ofDowry Act, 1961. The applicants have filed the present applicationseeking quashment of the said F.I.R. so also the Charge-Sheet 33347.2023APPLN.odtNo.108/2023 dated 18.07.2023 and Regular Criminal CaseNo.114/2023 registered pursuant to the said F.I.R., which is pending foradjudication before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Dharur.3.Respondent No.2 has stated in the F.I.R. that her marriagewith applicant No.1 was solemnized on 11.06.2020 and after a periodof around 15 days from the date of marriage, applicant No.1/husbandstarted doubting her character and as consequence of this, he startedharassing her physically as well as mentally. She alleges that applicantNo.1 used to beat her on account of such doubt and when she broughtthis fact to the notice of her parents-in-law i.e. applicant Nos.2 and 3and other applicants, she was shocked to find that they did not find anyfault with applicant No.1, but rather stated that her parents did notoffer appropriate presents to the in-laws during the marriage and hadgiven negligible amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. She allegesthat the applicants asked her to bring Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents inorder to enable applicant No.1 to start business of retail sale ofelectrical goods. She alleges that on 30.05.2023, applicant No.1 hadcalled her brother Gorakh asking her father to come to the house.Accordingly, her father came to her house at around 12 noon on30.05.2023. She alleges that applicant Nos.1 to 3 asked for a sum of 43347.2023APPLN.odtRs.4,00,000/- for starting the business of sale of electrical goods andalso that they had beaten her infront of her father and brother whilemaking demand of dowry. She also alleges that when her brother andfather intervened, applicant No.1 charged at them with stick in hishand. 4.During the course of investigation, statements of father,mother, brother and two relatives of respondent No.2 have beenrecorded. 5.At the outset we state that the present application wasdismissed as withdrawn with respect to applicant No.1, vide orderdated 01.11.2023. 6.As regards applicant Nos.2 and 3, F.I.R. contains a specificallegation regarding demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/-. The allegationpertaining to the incident dated 30.05.2023 where demand of dowrywas made in presence of father and brother of respondent No.2 andapplicant Nos.1 to 3 had also beaten respondent No.2 in presence ofher father and brother is a specific allegation. The date, time andparticulars have been mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also alleged that afterthe said incident, applicant No.1 had removed all the ornaments that
Decision
63347.2023APPLN.odthusband of one of the sisters is sought to be implicated in the matter. Itis now well settled that the relatives of husband should not be forced toface criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Codeunless there are clear and specific allegations in the F.I.R. andstatements of the witnesses indicating commission of offence. In thepresent case, the allegations are absolutely vague and lacking in allmaterial particulars. In view of the settled legal position by catena ofjudgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also this Court, we are ofthe considered opinion that the allegations in the F.I.R. and statementsof family members and relatives of respondent No.2 recorded duringthe course of investigation are grossly insufficient to make out offenceunder Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against applicant Nos.4to 7. We are therefore inclined to allow the application with respect toapplicant Nos.4 to 7. Hence, we pass the following order:ORDER(i)The application is partly allowed.(ii)The application is disposed of as withdrawn against applicantNo.1 - Pawan Trimbak Salunke.(iii)The application with respect to applicant No.2-Trimbak S/oKeshav Salunke and applicant No.3 - Sita W/o Trimbak Salunkeand isrejected. 73347.2023APPLN.odt(iv)F.I.R. No.193/2023 registered with Dharur Police Station,Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed on 24.06.2023, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowries Act, 1961, Charge-Sheet No.108/2023 dated 18.07.2023 and Regular Criminal CaseNo.114/2023 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,First Class, Dharur, are hereby quashed against applicant No.4 - RohiniW/o Datta Kadam, applicant No.5 - Gita W/o Sidheshwar Ghadge,applicant No.6 - Seema W/o Arun Raut and applicant No.7 - ArunKhanderao Raut. [ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/