Mr. Cedric D. Fernandes, Advocate for ApplicantsMr v. K. Kotecha, APP for

Legal Reasoning

1 4477-23-CrA.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4477 OF 20231.Dnyandeo Ashruji Jagare (Father in Law)Age: 69 years; Occ: Retired,R/o T. Point, Sindhkhed RajaDistrict Buldhana2.Gajanan Dnyandeo Jagare (Brother in Law)Age: 43 Years; Occ: Service,R/o: Police quarters, Washim3.Varsha Manohar Kharat (Sister in Law)Age: 40 Years, Occ: Housewife,R/o Ganseh Nagar, Akluj,Tq. Malshiras District Solapur.4.Meena Premshwar Zarhad (Sister in Law)Age: 37 Years, Occ: HousewifeR/o: Parad, Tq. AmbadDistrict Jalna… ApplicantsVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Police StationTirthpuri, Jalna2.Varsha w/o Shriram JagareAge: 28 Years, Occ: Housewife,R/o: Laxminarayan Lane, TirthpuriTq. Ghansawangi, District Jalna… Respondents…..Mr. Cedric D. Fernandes, Advocate for ApplicantsMr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent No.1/StateMr. Nilesh Bhagwat, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)….. CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SMT. MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.J.DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2025PER COURT (PER SMT. MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.):-1.Applicants are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 who has lodged Crime No.54/2023,SVH 2 4477-23-CrA.odtregistered with Tirthpuri Police Station, Jalna, on 19/10/2023, foroffence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Code.2.Applicants have approached this Court under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR to their extenton the ground that FIR does not disclose any prima facie offencesagainst applicants. The other ground which is raised by applicants isthat there is a huge delay in lodging the FIR, which is not explained byrespondent No.2. Therefore, imaginary and concocted story has beenmade by the informant just for the sake of causing harassment toapplicants.3.Respondent No.2 has filed complaint alleging that she wasmarried to one Shriram Dnyandev Jagare on 27/04/2014. Dowry ofRs.7,50,000/- Lakhs was given to applicants in marriage along withhousehold articles. Her husband was employed as a Health Worker atPachgani, District Satara and he used to visit hometown after gap of 1to 1.5 month. Since he was not visiting frequently, on 01/08/2014respondent No.2 requested her father-in-law to allow her to cohabitwith her husband at the place of his employment. Thereafter, father-in-law threatened her and her husband assaulted her and refused to takeher along with him. It is alleged that her brother-in-law Gajanan alsoassaulted her. Her two sisters-in-law used to instigate her in-laws toharass her. She was also being harassed since she was not able toSVH 3 4477-23-CrA.odtconceive a child. On this ground also she was mentally and physicallyharassed by the in-laws and was driven out of her house. When shewas driven out of her house, demand of Rs.2,50,000/- Lakhs was madeby the applicants for allowing her to come back to her matrimonialhouse to resume cohabitation. She was given ill-treatment and wasgiven threats. According to her, various efforts have been made forcompromise by her as well as her parents, but in vain. According torespondent No.2, from 21/12/2021 she is residing at her maternalhouse.4.It is the contention of applicants that allegations againstthem are frivolous and lodged with malafide intention. In fact,applicants have lodged N.C. No.18/2022 against informant and herrelatives on 19/01/2022, with Sindhakhed Raja Police Station, DistrictBuldhana, under Section 507 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated thatrespondent No.2 informant has left her matrimonial house as per herown will and wish. It is further contended that applicants have sentnotice to informant through an Advocate on 05/09/2022, wherein hehas categorically stated that informant herself had left her matrimonialhouse, which is accepted by respondent No.2 in her reply to the notice.When husband of informant was suffering from Covid-19 symptoms andwas admitted for that purpose, informant left the house with her sonwithout informing husband or in-laws who were staying nearby.Applicants never stayed along with respondent No.2. She was stayingSVH 4 4477-23-CrA.odtseparately with her husband. Husband of informant has filed HinduMarriage Petition before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mehkar, on11/04/2023.5.It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR aredevoid of any substance. There are no specific instances given insupport of the allegations and commission of offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Theallegations are supported neither by medical evidence nor ocularevidence. No incident stating that there was any demand of dowry orharassment to informant or her parents from applicants has beennarrated in the FIR. Allegations made are bereft of any details. So far asthe incident alleged to have occurred on 01/08/2014 is concerned,there is no evidence to support the same. Had there been anysubstance in the allegations of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2would have filed complaint in respect of the assault immediately.According to applicants, there is a huge delay of 668 days in lodgingthe FIR, which is not explained by informant.6.We have heard learned advocate for applicants, learnedadvocate appointed to represent respondent No.2 as well as learnedAPP for the State. Since no appearance was caused on behalf ofrespondent No.2, learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Bhagwat, is appointedthrough High Court Legal Services to represent respondent No.2.SVH 5 4477-23-CrA.odt7.Learned APP has opposed the application on the groundthat in the FIR there are specific allegations against each of theapplicants. Therefore, relief claimed by applicants herein may not begranted and the Criminal Application be dismissed.8.Upon hearing the respective parties and after goingthrough the FIR and documents placed on record, it is evident that themarriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized on 27/04/2014. She hasnarrated incident of 01/08/2014 in the FIR and according to her she hasbeen residing separately from her in-laws and husband since21/12/2021. The relevant dates mentioned above apparently disclosethat even after applicants and her husband started residing separatelyfrom her, there is delay of two years in lodging the FIR, which has notbeen explained by respondent No.2. Even if the incident of 01/08/2014which according to her is illustrative of the ill-treatment meted out toher by her husband and in-laws is considered, there is delay of morethan 9 years in filing complaint for ill-treatment meted out to her on01/08/2014. Respondent No.2 has failed to assign any reason as to thedelay caused in filing complaint belatedly.9.On going through the allegations made against applicants,it is evident that as against applicant No.1 father-in-law the onlyallegation seems to be that when she requested to allow her toaccompany her husband to his place of work, applicant No.1threatened her. However, there are no details as to what was theSVH 6 4477-23-CrA.odtthreat. There is merely an allegation about threat and abusivelanguage used against her, but no details about what abuses andthreats are mentioned in the complaint. Similarly, the allegation madeagainst applicant No.2 brother-in-law is that he has assaultedinformant. However, no details about assault are mentioned in thecomplaint, as to in what manner she is assaulted and what injury iscaused to her. Even the allegations against applicant Nos.3 and 4sisters-in-law, who reside at Akluj and Ambad respectively, are generalomnibus allegations about mental and physically cruelty andinstigation for ill-treatment meted out to respondent No.2. It is evidentthat both applicant Nos.3 and 4 are married and do not reside with thein-laws of respondent No.2. Even the allegation of demand of dowry isnot supported by any evidence.10.Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code provides that thehusband or the relative of husband of a woman, subjects such womanto cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment. For that purpose‘Cruelty’ means any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likelyto drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical of the woman;or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view tocoercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demandfor any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by heror any person related to her to meet such demand. Section 323provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to other person.SVH 7 4477-23-CrA.odtSection 504 provides punishment to whoever intentionally insults, andthereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to belikely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, orto commit any other offence. Section 506 provide punishment towhoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation.11.Upon going through the provisions of Indian Penal Code,none of the provisions which have been invoked by filing FIR areattracted from the allegations and narration of complaint. Applicantshave placed on record copy of Hindu Marriage Petition filed before theCivil Judge, Senior Division, Mehkar, on 11/04/2023 and the FIR islodged on 19/10/2023. Therefore, present complaint seems to be thecounter-blast to the said petition filed by husband of respondent No.2.Even assuming that it is not a counter-blast, the contents of FIR do notdisclose any offence made out under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w34. Though it is a settled position of law that powers under Section 482should be sparingly exercised, however, considering the contents of FIRno prima facie case is made out by respondent No.2 against presentapplicants. Allegations made in the FIR do not disclose commission ofany offences which are made out against applicants. The delay causedin filing the complaint implies that complaint has been filed only tocause harassment to applicants. Even in the FIR respondent No.2 hasnot offered any plausible explanation for inordinate delay caused inlodging FIR.SVH 8 4477-23-CrA.odt12.In the aforesaid background, applicants have filed theapplication to quash the FIR invoking powers of this Court underSection 482, which confers inherent powers to this Court to make suchorders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to securethe ends of justice. In our opinion, the present case is a case whereininherent powers of this Court are required to be exercised to meet theends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law.13.The case of applicants stands fully covered by illustrationsgiven in case of State Of Haryana And Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Laland Others, reported in 1992 SCC (SUPP) (1) 335. The broadcategories by way of illustration has been given in paragraph No.8 ofthe judgment, which reads thus:-“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are givenby way of illustration wherein such power could be exercisedeither to prevent abuse of the process of any Court orotherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not bepossible to lay down any precise, clearly defined andsufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigidformulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of caseswherein such power should be exercised:(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Reportor the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute anyoffence or make out a case against the accused;SVH 9 4477-23-CrA.odt(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report andother materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by policeofficers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under anorder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ofthe Code;(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the samedo not disclose the commission of any offence and make out acase against the accused;(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizableoffence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer withoutan order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code;(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noprudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there issufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution andcontinuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act,providing efficaciousredress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously institutedwith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accusedand with a view to spite him due to private and personalgrudge.” 14.Similar view has been taken by this Court in case ofAmarlal Hasomal Lalwani and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra,reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 219, decided on 18/01/2024. InSVH 10 4477-23-CrA.odtidentical facts and circumstances this Court has observed that in viewof vague statement about demand of car and cash from her parents,the informant has not given any further details, particularly the year inwhich such demand was made. Considering the delay in lodging FIR theallegations of cruelty are stale allegations. The allegations levelled inthe FIR even if accepted in totality, do not disclose commission ofcognizable offence.15.The observation in above judgments are squarelyapplicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, considering thatapplicants would be required to face trial with vague allegations, whichwould amount to abuse of process of Court, in order to preventmiscarriage of justice, Crime No.54/2023, registered with TirthpuriPolice Station, Jalna, on 19/10/2023, for offence punishable underSections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, isquashed and set aside to the extent of applicants herein. The criminalapplication is allowed in above terms.16.Fees of the learned advocate appointed to representrespondent No.2 is quantified as per the rules and shall be paid by theHigh Court Legal Services, Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, within aperiod of six weeks from today.(SMT. MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)SVH