High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3388 OF 20231Mukesh Suresh Prasad @Mukesh Rajendra Prasad,Age 33 yrs., Occ. Legal Practitioner,R/o Row House No.07, Honajinagar,Jathwada Road, Aurangabad. (Withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2024.)2Rajendra Shankardayal Prasad,Age 68 yrs., Occ. Pensioner,R/o Row House No.07, Honajinagar,Jathwada Road, Aurangabad. (Withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2024.)3Sonali d/o Suresh Prasad,Age 23 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Mathuranagar, N-6, CIDCO,Aurangabad. 4Suresh Deokrut Prasad,Age 53 yrs., Occ. Private Service,R/o Mathuranagar, N-6, CIDCO,Aurangabad. 5Pramila w/o Suresh Prasad,Age 51 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Mathuranagar, N-6, CIDCO,Aurangabad. 6Rani d/o Suresh Prasad(Rani w/o Sushil Bose),Age 25 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Bandgaon, Dist. Nalanda,(Bihar State)… Applicants… Versus … 2Cri.Appln_3388_20231The State of Maharashtra 2Bijali (Pooja) w/o Mukesh Prasad,Age 33 yrs., Occ. Service,R/o Honajinagar, Jathwada Road,Row House No.7, Aurangabad. … Respondents...Mr. I.G. Durrani, Advocate for applicantsMrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent No.1Mr. K.L. Tupe, Advocate for respondent No.2 - absent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON :20th FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :08th APRIL, 2025ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1Present application has been filed for quashing the proceedingsin Regular Criminal Case No.94/2022 pending before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Aurangabad arising out of First Information Reportvide Crime No.459/2021 dated 18.11.2021 registered with Police Station,Begumpura, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections377, 354(A), 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 3Cri.Appln_3388_2023Code, 1860. 2It will not be out of place to mention here that when the matterwas on board on 17.01.2024, upon instructions, learned Advocate forapplicants has withdrawn the application to the extent of applicant Nos.1 and2, who are happen to be the husband and father-in-law of respondent No.2. 3Matter proceeded for the reliefs claimed by applicant Nos.3 to 6.4Heard learned Advocate Mr. I.G. Durrani for applicants andlearned APP Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar for respondent No.1. In order to cutshort, it can be said that they have argued in support of their respectivecontentions. 5It is not in dispute that original applicant Nos.1 and respondentNo.2 got married on 09.10.2011. Applicant No.3 is married sister-in-law,applicant No.4 is father-in-law, applicant No.5 is mother-in-law and applicantNo.6 is married sister-in-law. Applicant No.2 has also been posed as father-in-law, but reference to him is that applicant No.1 is stated to have gone inadoption to applicant No.2. 6Perusal of First Information Report as against applicant Nos.3 to6 is concerned, it is stated that all of them used to demand dowry and used 4Cri.Appln_3388_2023to harass respondent No.2, mentally and physically. Here, it is to be notedthat when the First Information Report was lodged on 18.11.2021, there isabsolutely no mention, as to when exactly the amount and four wheeler wasdemanded. But, then it is stated that a four wheeler was given in 2014 tohusband and a two wheeler was given in 2016. The entire charge sheet doesnot show any money transaction, but there is an affidavit of one KishorAglave, whose four wheeler was given in 2016 in possession of applicantNo.1 and it is stated in the affidavit that the amount of consideration wasgiven by Satish Tarachand Yadav, who is brother of respondent No.2. Now, asper First Information Report, four wheeler of same number was given in2014, whereas the affidavit says that it was given in 2016. How the amountwas transferred by witness Satish in the account of Kishor Aglave has notbeen stated. In the statement of Satish Yadav, he has not stated as to whatwas the consideration that he had paid for that four wheeler and how hemade the payment. Statement of his Savings Account is taken, however, it isfrom 2018 onwards. In his statement, he says that two wheeler was given in2018, whereas First Information Report says that it was given in 2016. Thereare no documents in respect of two wheeler, how the consideration was paid,who was the owner etc. Therefore, there is no documentary support to theFirst Information Report and statement of brother of respondent No.2. Onthe next day there is a supplementary statement of informant i.e. on 5Cri.Appln_3388_202319.11.2021, wherein she has then corrected the year of four wheeler and twowheeler. But, still she has not disclosed how her brother had paid theamount for those vehicles and how much was the consideration. 7The supplementary statement thereafter improves a story thatwhen applicant No.6’s marriage was fixed, at that time, respondent No.2’s allgold ornaments were sold and in-laws of applicant No.6 were paid amount ofRs.10,00,000/- as dowry, a two wheeler was given and still dowry ofRs.5,00,000/- is remaining to be paid. That means, it is a dowry, that is,alleged to be paid for marriage of applicant No.6. It is not stated whenapplicant No.6 got married. But then in the supplementary statementinformant says that for the said remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/- she washarassed. Respondent No.2 is serving lady. That means, she is not a laymanand further it can be seen from the supplementary statement that on19.11.2021 she has received the intimation regarding divorce proceedingsfiled by applicant No.1. Applicant No.1 has filed the petition before FamilyCourt, Aurangabad for annulment of marriage stating that in fact, respondentNo.2 is an illegitimate child. Her mother is Muslim and father is Hindu andthat was revealed by father of respondent No.2 in petition C – 20/2011,which was filed by respondent No.2 against father to get the expenditure ofher marriage. The fact was suppressed by respondent No.2. Under such 6Cri.Appln_3388_2023circumstance, allegations against applicant Nos.3 to 6 appears to be taintedwith mala fides. There is no specific role attributed to them and, therefore,case is made out for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in favour of applicant Nos.3 to 6. Hence, following order.ORDERi)Criminal Application stands allowed. ii)The proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.94/2022 pendingbefore learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad arising out of FirstInformation Report vide Crime No.459/2021 dated 18.11.2021 registeredwith Police Station, Begumpura, Dist. Aurangabad, for the offence punishableunder Sections 377, 354(A), 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860, stands quashed and set aside as againstapplicants viz. 3) Sonali d/o Suresh Prasad, 4) Suresh Deokrut Prasad, 5)Pramila w/o Suresh Prasad and 6) Rani d/o Suresh Prasad. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd