High Court

Legal Reasoning

APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4248 OF 20231)Sushma w/o Yashpal Dawalpure,Age 38 years, Occ. HomemakerR/o. Manthale Nagar Latur, Tq &Dist. Latur.2)Yashpal s/o Nagnath Dawalpure,Age 40 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Manthale Nagar Latur, Tq &Dist. Latur.3)Varsha w/o Dayanand Kangule,Age 34 years, Occ. Homemaker R/o. Jam Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.4)Dayanand s/o Dnyanoba Kangule,Age 40 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Jam Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.…ApplicantsVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtra2)Manisha w/o Ganesh Kanure,Age 26 years, Occ. Nil.R/o. At present residint at Ekta Nagar,Vasrani, Tq. Nanded, Dist. Nanded…Respondents…WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4256 OF 2023 Sumitra Bapurao Kanure…ApplicantVERSUS1The State of Maharashtra2)Manisha w/o Ganesh Kanure,Age 26 years, Occ. Nil.R/o. At present residint at Ekta Nagar,Vasrani, Tq. Nanded, Dist. Nanded…Respondents...Advocates for Applicants : Mr. Ajinkya Reddy and U.L. TelgaonkarA.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. V. K. Kotecha1/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtAdvocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amit A. MukhedkarCORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON :: 08.04.2024 18.04.2024ORDER : (PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) By way of these two separate applications by different accused fromCrime No. 666/2023, registered with Nanded Rural Police Station, DistrictNanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal case bearingRegular Criminal Case No. 1303/2023, pending before the JudicialMagistrate First Class, Nanded are seeking quashment of the crime and thecriminal case by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure. 2.At the joint request of the parties, we have heard both the sides atthe stage of admission.3.As can be gathered, the husband of the respondent no. 2 is notbefore us. Criminal Application No. 4248/2023 has been filed by twomarried sisters of the husband and their respective husbands, whereasCriminal Application No. 4256/2023 has been filed by the mother of thehusband.4.Shortly stated the allegations, as can be discerned from the charge-sheet are to the effect that the couple was married on 28.04.2017 and wasblessed with two children. However, since December 2021 her husband andmother in law started questioning her character. Even the sisters in law andtheir husbands were of the same view. She and her children were not givenfood. She was abused and mentally harassed. The husband dropped her atthe parental home on 12.12.2022 with one of the two sons and took away2/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtthe other one. Thereafter the husband and all his relatives started insistingher to bring an amount of Rs. 10 lakh for purchasing a home. Subsequently,the husband even took away the other son. Thereafter, telephonically thehusband insisted her to bring money and else refused to allow her to resumecohabitation. She was even threatened. She then lodged the F.I.R. on14.09.2023.5.The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that theapplicants are not concerned with the alleged ill-treatment meted out to therespondent no. 2. The allegations are basically against the husband. TheF.I.R. has been lodged as an after thought, after the husband filed a divorceproceeding. The allegations against these applicants are vague and generalin nature. Going by the probabilities, it is unlikely that all of a sudden afterfive years of marriage a dispute could arose. The applicants are residents ofdifferent villages and were not residing under the same roof together withthe couple. It would be abuse of the process of law to allow the applicantsto face the prosecution. The case is squarely covered by State of Haryanaand Ors V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors.: AIR 1992 Supreme Court, 604.6.Per contra, the learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for therespondent no. 2 would strongly oppose the applications. They would referto the decision in the matter of Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar and ors.;2008 (4) Scale 294. They would submit that in exercise of the powersunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this Court cannotundertake scrutiny of the material collected by the investigating officer so asto conduct a mini trial. The power has to be used sparingly and in rarematters. The very fact that even after the couple could beget couple ofchildren the matrimonial discord has occurred is demonstrative of the factthat all was not well. At this juncture there is nothing to disbelieve theallegations in the F.I.R. The prosecution deserves to be extended anopportunity to substantiate the charge by leading cogent and convincing3/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtevidence. There are precise and specific allegations against the applicantswho have been named in the F.I.R. and the applications be rejected.7.Bearing in mind the inherent limitations on the powers of this Courtunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as laid down in thematter of Renu Kumari (supra), a threadbare scrutiny of the materialcollected by the investigating officer cannot be undertaken. In other wordsthere cannot be a mini trial resorted to by this Court much less to examine ifthe material annexed to the charge-sheet and the evidence likely to beplaced before the trial court would ultimately result in conviction orotherwise. That is not the purport of such inquiry.8.Simultaneously, there are catena of decisions of the Supreme Courtparticularly in the matters of offences registered pursuant to a matrimonialdispute and even noticing the usual tendency to rope in as many relatives ofthe husband as possible for the obvious reasons to wreak vengeance. Onecan conveniently refer to the decisions in the matters of : 1)Preeti Gupta and Anr. V/s. State of Jharkhand andAnr. [(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667], 2)Geeta Mahrotra & Anr V/s. State of U.P. & Anr.[2013 (AIR) (SC) 181],3)Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs.State of Bihar; (2022) 6 SCC 599 Obviously, the present enquiry is addressed to ascertain if the fact situationis covered by the instances quoted in the matter of Bhajan Lal (supra) whichhave been referred to and relied upon even in the matter of Renu Kumari(supra). With this preface, let us turn to the facts of the material in hand.9.Obviously, an F.I.R. cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia. Itwould merely give a broad line. It is meant to set the criminal law inmotion. The actual investigation takes place thereafter. Consequently,merely by pointing out some discrepancy or vagueness in the F.I.R., one4/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtcannot reach to a conclusion to ascertain if the crime should be quashed. Itbecomes imperative, therefore, to examine the material collected by theinvestigating officer and forming part of the charge-sheet to understand thenature of the allegations.10.The F.I.R. expressly mentions that the couple was married on28.04.2017 but the actual matrimonial dispute began in December 2021,after the couple was blessed with two sons. It is the version in the F.I.R. aswell as the statements of the witnesses that thereafter the husband and hisrelatives, all the applicants started suspecting her chastity and on that countshe was being abused and mentally harassed and even a demand for moneywas raised for purchasing a house. The F.I.R. and the statements of thewitnesses further mention that on 12.12.2022 the husband dropped therespondent no. 2 at the parental home with one of the two sons and tookaway the other son and even subsequently he took away the other son aswell. It is further alleged that since thereafter the husband started insistingfor payment of money as a condition for allowing the respondent no. 2 toresume cohabitation.11.The parents of the respondent no. 2, her paternal uncle, her maternaluncle, a friend of her father in their statements recorded under Section 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure have substantiated the allegations. Overand above, the parents have stated that in March 2023, when her fatherinformed the husband that he is bringing her to resume cohabitation at thematrimonial home and the rest accompanied him, they were not permittedto enter into the house. Even the respondent no. 2 was not allowed to meetthe children. These applicants hurled abuses and demanded money as acondition for allowing the respondent no. 2 to resume cohabitation and alsothreatened them.12.Obviously, the mother of the husband must have been cohabitingwith the couple under the same roof. His sisters being married, in all5/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtprobability they must have been residing separately albeit they could be onvisiting terms and must have frequented to the house of the couple.However, the allegations against the married sisters and their husbands, inour considered view, are vague and omnibus and have been levelledobjectively as is the usual tendency in such matters even noticed by theSupreme Court. If the couple could lead happy married life for about fiveyears and the dispute has started only thereafter, it is most unlikely thatthese married sisters and their husbands could have played any role. Thereis no independent material to substantiate the allegations about the rolebeing attributed to them. In all probability, they must have been implicatedto wreak vengeance. It would be abuse of the process of law to make themface the prosecution. One cannot give weightage to the fact that theirnames appear in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the witnesses.13.Simultaneously, it cannot be inferred that merely because the F.I.R.has been lodged after the husband filed a petition for divorce to discard theF.I.R. outrightly. One cannot lose sight of the fact that such married woman,having two children like the respondent no. 2 who are intending to resumematrimonial ties would not readily resort to the process of law so that itshould not be a triggering factor for closing the doors of the matrimonialhome permanently.14.In view of such state of affairs, in our considered view, theapplication of the mother in law cannot be entertained. However, theapplication of the married sisters of the husband and their husbandsdeserves to be allowed. 15. The Criminal Application No. 4248/2023 is allowed. Crime No.666/2023, registered with Nanded Rural Police Station, District Nanded, forthe offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal case bearing Regular CriminalCase No. 1303/2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,6/7 APPLN 4248 23 425623.odtNanded are quashed and set aside as against the applicants.16.The Criminal Application No. 4256/2023 is rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd/-7/7