Himanshu S/O Dr. Bhagwan Ambhore ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1024 Bom

                                         {1}
                                                             crappln513315.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                       
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5133 OF 2015




                                               
     1 Himanshu s/o Dr.Bhagwan Ambhore,
        age: 27 years, Occupation: Service,
        Residing at Badi Sadak, Jalna.




                                              
     2 Dr.Bhagwan s/o Gamaji Ambhore,
        age: 60 years, Occupation: Pensioner,
        Residing at House No.30, HIG, R-28,
        MHADA Colony, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad.




                                   
     3 Dr.Mrs. Kavita w/o Bhagwan Ambhore,
        age: 52 years, Occupation: service,


              Versus
                             
        Residing at above address.                      Applicants
                            
     1 The State of Maharashtra,
        through the Secretary to the Government,
        Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
      

     2 The Director General of Police,
        Colaba, Mumbai.
   



     3 The Inspector General of Police,
        Aurangabad Range, Aurangabad.

     4 The Superintendent of Police,





        Osmanabad.

     5 The Senior Police Inspector,
        Omerga Police Station,
        Omerga, District Osmanabad.





     6 Namrata w/o Himashu Pisorkar,
        Nee : Namrata @ Pradnya d/o 
        Kailash Shinde, age: 23 years,
        Occupation: Self employed,
        Residing at c/o Kailas Shinde,
        New Balajinagar, Taluka Omerga,
        District Osmanabad.                             Respondents




    ::: Uploaded on - 01/04/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 11:04:52 :::
                                                  {2}
                                                                         crappln513315.odt

                                       




                                                                                   
     Mr.H.S.Surve, advocate for  applicants. 
     Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for Respondents No.1 to 5.
     Mr.P.V.Barde, advocate for Respondent No.6.




                                                           
      
                                                CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
                                                              K.L.WADANE, JJ.

                                               DATE    : 30th March, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
      
     1        Heard.     Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith   and 




                                            

heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

The applicants are praying to quash the First

Information Report lodged on 13.09.2015 at Police Station Omerga, District Osmanabad, whereupon a crime has been registered bearing No.166/2015. The offence alleged is punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 The complainant is wife of applicant no.1 and it is alleged that marriage has taken place on 02.06.2015, few months

prior to lodging of First Information Report. There are allegations made in the First Information Report in respect of alleged illtreatment by the husband i.e. petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.3,

mother-in-law of the complainant.

4 On perusal of the complaint, it is noticed that there are absolutely no allegations in respect of illtreatment meted out to the complainant at the hands of petitioner no.2 Dr.Bhagwan, who is father in law of the complainant. Since, prima facie, there does not

{3} crappln513315.odt

appear to be a case made out against father in law and since there

are absolutely no allegations levelled against him, we are of the opinion that his presence at the trial is not warranted. The

impleadment of petitioner no.2 in the crime is unwarranted and criminal proceedings initiated against him are without any foundation. As such, First Information Report lodged against

petitioner no.2 and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto against him shall be required to be quashed and set aside and those are accordingly quashed and set aside. The

investigation, in pursuance to lodging of First Information Report

against petitioners no.1 and 3, may proceed.

5 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.

               K.L.WADANE                                 R.M.BORDE
                   JUDGE                                     JUDGE
   



     adb/crappln513315