Bombay High Court
Prashant S/O Suresh Borse & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 29 June, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.314 OF 2015
1. Prashant Suresh Borse,
Age-36 years, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Udgir Dairy, Tq.Udgir,
Dist.Latur,
2. Ratnamala W/o Suresh Borse,
Age-59 years, Occu-Household and
Social work,
3. Dipali d/o Suresh Borse,
Age-26 years, Occu-Education,
Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 R/o Sharda Nagar,
Deopur, Dhule, Tq. and Dist. Dhule PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sow.Urmila w/o Prashant Borse,
Age-22 years, Occu-Household,
R/o C/o Trambak Bhile Deore,
Deur (Bk.), Tq. and Dist. Dhule. RESPONDENTS
Mr.N.B.Narwade, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.N.T.Bhagat, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/06/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
2. The petitioners, by this petition, seek a direction for quashing
the proceedings in Cri.Misc.Appl.No.63/2015 pending before the
learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Dhule, under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. Respondent No.2 is the original complainant. Petitioner No.1 is
the husband of the complainant. Petitioner No.2, is the mother in
law of the complainant and petitioner No.3 is the sister of petitioner
No.1 and hence sister in law of respondent No.2/ complainant.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that the complaint lodged
by the complainant dated 13/01/2015 bears a false and concocted
story. Instances of beating, illtreatment, abuse and demand of
Rs.15,00,000/- are totally false. Same are a figment of imagination
and they find place in the complaint only on account of the vindictive
attitude of the complainant.
5. Learned Advocate has taken me through the entire petition.
He then submits that the father of the complainant has mentioned in
his written statement (undated) with the Deopur Police Station that
the complainant had left the marital home on 01/12/2013 for the
purpose of casting her vote in the Z.P. Elections at the parents home.
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
Since then she has not been residing in her marital home. He made
an attempt for reconciliation on 30/03/2014 by reaching the place of
her husband requesting for allowing his daughter to enter the marital
home and continue to live in the said marital home. However, the
petitioners did not allow the complainant to enter the marital home.
Based on this statement which is undated, the petitioners contend
that it is indicative of the fact that the original complainant has not
been residing at her marital home since 01/12/2013. As such, all the
contentions mentioned in the complaint are baseless and aimed at
harassing the petitioners.
6. He then has indicated from a document at page No.44 of the
petition paper book, which is a vehicle registration certificate, which
indicates that the vehicle was hypothecated to a Finance Company
and as such there was no question of the father of the complainant
taking a loan on the said vehicle to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- and
that the said amount was paid to satisfy the greed of petitioner
No.1 / husband.
7. Learned Advocate has then canvassed that petitioner No.2 is
the mother in law and is aged about 60 years. She has been
unnecessarily dragged by the complainant in her complaint only out
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
of her animosity towards the petitioners. There are no allegations
against her.
8. It is then pointed out that petitioner No.3 is a college going
student. Though she lives under the same roof with her mother and
brother, she had no role to play in the so called act of illtreatment
and beating.
9. It is, therefore, submitted that the complaint filed by the
complainant deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the
reported judgment of this Court in the matter of Jayesh Uttamrao
Khairnar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 All M.R. (Cri.) 2259.
10. Mr.Chatterji, learned Advocate for respondent No.2/
complainant submits that though the father of the complainant may
have recorded his statement before the concerned police station, it
remains un-controverted that the complainant has left the marital
home on 01/12/2013. The incident narrated in the complaint is of
the same date. Her father, however, submits in the statement that
an attempt was made to have his daughter join the company of her
husband, but in vain. The petitioners were not inclined to allow the
complainant in her marital home.
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
11. He further submits that the complaint filed by the complainant
narrates her illtreatment and the agony that she has suffered. It
would be a matter of trial in order to establish the acts alleged to
have been committed by the petitioners. It is settled law that if there
is some material before the Court in order to initiate proceedings,
such proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the
accused may have a good case in defence. He, therefore, prays for the
dismissal of this petition.
12. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
13. The event narrated in the complaint is said to have occurred on
01/12/2013. The complainant has voiced her illtreatment and the
physical abuse that she may have suffered, in her complaint. It is
also stated that the petitioners have extracted apologies from her by
threatening her and it was under force, duress and coercion that she
had written such statements as was desired by the petitioners.
14. In so far as the statement of the father of the complainant is
concerned, ex-facie it appears to be an attempt to give a clean chit to
the petitioners. He has tried to state that his daughter was never
illtreated, never abused and never beaten. Per contra, the
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
complainant, who claims to have actually suffered physical and
mental abuse, is the nucleus of the litigation. Her statement and
her contentions in the complaint are more significant and germane.
15. In so far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, it is said in the
complaint that on one occasion, she had held the complainant when
the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had assaulted her. It is canvassed that
she is an unmarried college going student and in the face of there
being no specific allegations against her, she would be unnecessarily
made to suffer the rigours of litigation and which is likely to affect her
prospects as a student as well as with regard to her marriage.
16. At this prima-facie stage, in my view, there is enough material
before the learned Magistrate to proceed with Cri.Misc.Appl.No.
63/2015 to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. As such, this
petition succeeds only to the extent of petitioner No.3 Deepali.
17. In so far as the report relied upon by the petitioners in the
matter of Jayesh Uttamrao (supra) is concerned, the facts reveal that
the complainant was not residing in her marital home for a period of
about 2 years prior to her application. So also the said application
did not indicate that her case would fall under section 20(1) of the
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
Act.
18. I do not find that the view taken by this Court would be of any
assistance to the petitioners considering the fact that the alleged
incident of severe beating is dated 01/12/2013 and thereafter the
complainant had left her marital home. Her complaint dated
13/01/2015 is based on events that have allegedly occurred on
01/12/2013, pursuant to which she had left her marital home.
19. In the result, this petition is partly allowed in terms of prayer
clause B, only to the extent of petitioner No.3 Deepali Suresh Borse,
who is respondent No.3 in the Court below. This petition stands
dismissed to the extent of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 namely Prashant
Suresh and his mother Ratnamala Suresh.
20. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
21. No costs.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/JUNE 2016/314-d
