High Court
Legal Reasoning
cria-4181.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4181 OF 20231) Ashwini Mahesh Bhambarkar, Age-24 years, Occu:Household,2) Sujata Raju Jadhav, Age-45 years, Occu:Household,3) Raju S/o Bhagwant Jadhav, Age-50 years, Occu:Agril.,4) Akash Raju Jadhav, Age-23 years, Occu:Service,All R/o-Wadgaon Amli,Tq-Parner, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, Tq. and Dist-Ahmednagar. 2) Mahesh S/o Prabhakar Bhambarkar, Age-24 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Rani Laxmibai Chowk, Bhushannagar, Kedgaon, Tq. and Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Rajendra S. Kasar Advocate for Applicants. Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.B. Narwade Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... cria-4181.232 CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings inR.C.C. No.1685 of 2022 pending before the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable underSections 406, 420, 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, arising out of the First Information Report (for short “theFIR”) vide Crime No. 584 of 2022 registered on 26th July 2022,with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. 2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kasar for the applicants,learned APP Mr. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 and learnedAdvocate Mr. Narwade for respondent No.2. 3.Before we proceed to consider the case in detail, the factswhich are not disputed, are that applicant No.1 is the wife ofrespondent No.2. They got married on 22nd May 2022. It isfurther not in dispute that due to the differences between them,they are not residing together. cria-4181.2334.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us throughthe contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet and submits thatrespondent No.2 accepts that after the marriage applicant No.1joined him in cohabitation, however, according to respondentNo.2, applicant No.1 - wife has instigated him to demand theshop which was in possession of his parents. It is the electricalshop situated at village Kedgaon, Taluka and District-Ahmednagar. According to respondent No.2, applicant No.2 whois the mother of applicant No.1, applicant No.3 who is father ofapplicant No.1 and applicant No.4 who is the brother of applicantNo.1, used to instigate applicant No.1, who then used toinstigate respondent No.2 to demand separate residence andpossession of the shop. Respondent No.2 went to Pune on 25thJune 2022, in search of work as his parents refused to handoverpossession of the shop to him. While going from his house,respondent No.2 had taken cash of Rs.2,50,000/-, kept by hisparents with him. According to respondent No.2, after he left forPune, applicant No.1 had also left the matrimonial home bytaking her ornaments and clothes, and went to her parentshouse. She had then kept her status on WhatsApp, defaming thefamily of respondent No.2, on 30th June 2022. According to cria-4181.234respondent No.2, applicant No.1 was giving insulting treatment,so also applicant Nos.2 to 4 were also showing disrespect to himand used to say that applicant No.1 got married to him only afterconsidering the property and money in his hand. RespondentNo.2 had searched for a flat on rent at Kedgaon and had joinedthe job in Excide Company in M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar. He startedresiding with wife and mother-in-law, but applicant No.1 was notgiving him tiffin. Applicant No.1 was refusing to work or giveanything to eat to him. Respondent No.2 says that he wasspending the amount from the cash he had brought from hisparents house, but still the wife was not satisfied. He left her on15th June 2022, at her parents house. Respondent No.2 says thatimmediately applicant No.2 had sent applicant No.1 along withher nephew, to the flat on 16th June 2022, and at that time thecash amount of Rs.2,35,000/- and gold ornaments were takenaway by the applicants. Thereafter applicant No.1 refused tocohabit with respondent No.2.5.Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the saidallegations in the FIR are just to harass the wife and herrelatives. In fact, applicant No.1 had given a complaint to DistrictSuperintendent of Police, Ahmednagar on 28th July 2022. Even ifwe consider the contents of the FIR as it is, the ingredients of cria-4181.235Section 420, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Codeare not at all attracted. The charge-sheet would show that thereis no recovery from the applicants. Unnecessarily, thereafter theoffence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code came to beadded at the time of charge-sheet.6.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and learned APPhave objected to the quashment of the FIR and the proceedings.Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 relies on the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No.2, which is nothing but reproduction ofthe contents of the charge-sheet. He submits that respondentNo.2 has tried to behave as per the terms of the wife and herfamily members and it appears that he went against his parents,yet the wife was not satisfied at all. The wife had no intention tocohabit with respondent No.2. Thereafter, there was also anattempt to arrive at a compromise and take applicant No.1 forcohabitation but she refused. Now the investigation is over.Statements of witnesses have been recorded and therefore, letthe trial be held.7.At the outset, we would like to say that as regards the goldornaments are concerned, the contents of the FIR as well as thestatements of parents of respondent No.2 and other witnesses
Legal Reasoning
cria-4181.236would show that those ornaments were given to applicant No.1at the time of marriage. They might have been purchased by thehusband – respondent No.2, still when those ornaments havebeen given at the time of marriage, then it becomes her‘Stridhan’ and therefore, she is the owner of the property as wellas the legal possessor. The husband cannot have any objectionin respect of the same. If those ornaments are taken away byher, it will not amount to any offence. By no stretch ofimagination it can be said that those gold ornaments, whichwere given at the time of marriage to the wife, would be anentrustment as contemplated under Section 405 of the IndianPenal Code. There is also no question of deception if applicantNo.1 keeps those ornaments with her.8.Further, as regards the cash of Rs.2,50,000/- orRs.2,35,000/- is concerned, except the bare statements, there isnothing. The source of that amount has not been stated. Merelybecause the husband and his family members are havingelectrical shop, that does not mean that they might bepossessing such amount with them. If that amount was from thebusiness, then there ought to have been reflection of suchamount in the books of accounts of the shop. No such documentis produced to support the contentions. If the existence of that cria-4181.237amount with the husband – respondent No.2 is not even shownprima facie, question of taking away that amount will not arise. 9.As regards Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code isconcerned, the deception should be since beginning. Thecontents of the FIR does not disclose that there was any elementof deception since beginning. It is the normal procedure that atthe time of settlement of marriage an inquiry would be made inrespect of earnings of the would be bridegroom. Therefore, evenif it would have been disclosed by respondent No.2 and hisfamily members that respondent No.2 is looking after the affairsof the electrical shop and they are having agricultural land, thatcannot be considered as a method to deceive or planning todeceive the informant and his family members. The FIR isnothing but the outcome of the marital discord, in whichapplicant Nos. 2 to 4 appears to have been unnecessarilydragged. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted thatthere was some instigation for some behaviour from applicantNo.2 to applicant No.1, yet it cannot be said that such instigationwas with the criminal intention. 10.The Application, therefore, requires to be allowed and theproceedings are required to be quashed and set aside to prevent cria-4181.238the abuse of process of law. Hence, we pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands allowed.(II) The proceedings in R.C.C. No.1685 of 2022pending before the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Ahmednagar, for the offencepunishable under Sections 406, 420, 201, readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, arisingout of the First Information Report vide Crime No.584 of 2022 registered on 26th July 2022, withKotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, standsquashed and set aside as against applicant Nos. 1to 4 i.e. - 1) Ashwini Mahesh Bhambarkar, 2)Sujata Raju Jadhav, 3) Raju S/o BhagwantJadhav and 4) Akash Raju Jadhav. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/FEB25