Bombay High Court
Arvind S/O. Pyarelal Jain And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 October, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 438 OF 2016
1. Arvind s/o. Pyarelal Jain
Age - 54 Years, Occ - Service
R/o. 43, Mahaveer Colony,
Behind Malaria Office,
Sakri Road, Dhule,
District - Dhule.
2.
Smt. Sarita w/o. Arvind Jain
Age - 50 years, Occ - Household
R/o. 43, Mahaveer Colony,
Behind Malaria Office,
Sakri Road, Dhule,
District - Dhule. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Dhule City Police Station, Dhule
District - Dhule
2. Dr. Princy w/o. Amit Jain
Age - 26 Years, Occ - Household,
R/o. C/o. Gulabchand Nanhelal Jain,
L-3, Balak Hill, View Colony,
Shivaji Ward, Police Station Gopalganj
Sagar (Madhya Pradesh).
Presently residing at -
H-57, Mayur Parisa,
Near Queen Merry School,
Ayodhya Extension,
Ayodhya Bye Pass Road,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 01:04:31 :::
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
2
...
Mr.K.G.Ghadhve Patil, Advocate holding for
Mr.Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the
petitioners
Mr.C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for respondent no.2
Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for Respondent - State
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 17.10.2016
Pronounced on : 20.10.2016
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
This Petition is filed seeking
quashment of the First Information Report
bearing Crime No.217 of 2015 (for short
'FIR') registered with Dhule City Police
Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, to the extent it relates to
the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the allegations
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
in the FIR are general in nature. There are
no specific overt acts attributed to the
petitioners. It is also not stated that on
which date the incident of harassment and
mental cruelty is caused. It is further
submitted that respondent no.2 left
matrimonial home on 07.06.2015 and the FIR is
lodged on 03.11.2015. There is inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR. It is further
submitted that, respondent no.2 has put it in
writing on 07.06.2015 that, her husband and
herself are from the medical profession,
therefore, she has decided to start residing
with her husband peacefully in future. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
invites our attention to the contents of the
said alleged written statement of respondent
no.2 (at Exh.R3, Page 73) of the compilation
of the Criminal Writ Petition, and submits
that the Petition deserves to be allowed.
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
3. The learned counsel for the
petitioners in support of his contention
that, when there are no specific allegations
in the FIR, such FIR deserves to be quashed,
presses into service exposition of law in the
cases of Neelu Chopra and Anr. Vs. Bharti1,
Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Anr.2 and Swapnil and others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh3.
4. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites
our attention to the allegations in the FIR
and also the averments in the affidavit-in-
reply filed by respondent no.2, and submits
that the allegations in the FIR will have to
be read as they are and can only be tested
during trial. In support of the said
contention, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 presses into service
1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950
2 2010 AIR SCW 4975
3 2014 AIR SCW 6056
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
exposition of law in the case of Taramani
Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.4. The learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 further
submits that respondent no.2 has never given
statement on 07.06.2015, and therefore, the
reliance placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners on the said
statement is totally baseless.
5. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the learned
APP appearing for the respondent - State and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2. With their able assistance, perused the
grounds taken in the petition, annexures
thereto, an allegation in the FIR, the
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2,
the relevant provisions of the IPC and the
judgments cited supra by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned
4 2015 AIR SCW 1817
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
counsel for respondent no.2. At the outset it
would be apt to reproduce herein below the
relevant portion from the FIR, which would
spell out the ingredients of the offences
alleged against the petitioners:-
-----1½ ;g fd vkosfndk dk fookg fnukad- 04-12-13 dks fganq
jhfr fjokt uqlkj lkr Hkkaoj iMdj 'kgj /kqys ¼/kqfy;k½ rglhy
ok ftyk /kqys egkjk"Vª es vukosnd dz&1 ds lkFk lEiUu gqvk
Fkk A 2½ ;g fd fookg ds nkSjku vukosndx.k dh ekax vuqlkj
vkosfndk ds ekrk firk us vukosndx.k dks ngst es 8
yk[k :i;k uxn 12 rksyk lksus dh tsoj] 40 xzke lksus ds 40
flDds] 800 xzke pkanh dk tsoj] diMs o ?kj x`gLFkh dk lkeku
dqy 16 yk[k :i;k fn;s Fks A 3½ ;g dh fookg ds ckn
vkosfndk viuh llqjky /kqys egkjk"Vª xbZ o vukosndx.k ds
lkFk jgh ml nkSjku vkosfndk ds llqjky igqapus ij
vukonsdx.kksa us dqN ngst ds crZu o lkeku ifjogu es pVd
x;k Fkk mls vkosfndk ,oa vkoafndk ds HkkbZ o firk ds lkeus
tehu ij iVd dj rksM fn;k o vkosfndk o mlds firk] HkkbZ
dks [kjh [kksVh lqukdj VwVk lkeku o crZu okil ys tkus dks
dgk A 4 ½ ;g fd vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ls vkosfndk ds
fj'rsnkjks dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr iwaNdj dgk fd fdl&fdl
fj'rsnkjksa us D;k&D;k tsoj fn;s crkvks A vukonsdx.k ;g
Hkyh Hkkafr tkurs Fks fd] vkosfndk f'kf{kr o MkWDVjh dh ch-
Mh-,l- fMxzh /kkjh ;qorh gS mls ckotwn vukosnedx.kksa us
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
vkosfndk dks tehu ij pVkbZ ij lqyk;k dqRrks dks Qsaddj tSls
[kkuk fn;k tkrk gS oSlk [kkuk [kkus dks fn;k Hkh"k.k xehZ es
dqyj o ia[kk jkr ,oa nksigj es ugh pykus nsrs A xehZ dss 3
efgus rd Nr ij lqyk;k vkSj xkyh xykSp dj MkWV&QVdkj
dj dgk fd fcuk ia[kk] dqyj ds lksus dh vknr Mky yks A
vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ÷kkMw iksNk djokrs vkSj vukosnd dz-
1]2]3]4 vkosfndk ls vius iSj] flj] 'kjhj es rsy yxokdj
ekfy'k djokdj dgrs fd] ukSdjkuh cudj vkbZ gks ukSdjkuh dh
rjg gh jguk A vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks fcuk ugk;s izfrfnu
lqcg 5 cts ls [kkuk cukus dks etcwj djrs A vkosfndk dks isV
o 'kjhj ds vanj nnZ rdyhQ gksus ij fpfdRld ls bykt ok
lksuksxzkQh ugha djkrs cfYd 'kjhj ij feV~Vh dk rsy yxus o
pw.kZ [kkdj rdyhQ nwj djus dks dgrs A 5½ ;g fd lqcg ls
jk=h rd ?kj&x`gLFkh ds dke es foyEc gksrk rks vukosndx.k
xkyh xykSp dj vkosfndk o mlds ekrk firk ds ckjs es vi'kCn
cksydj /kedh nsrs fd ek;ds Hkxk nsaxs A vkosfndk viuh
jkstejkZ dh t:jr dh phtksa dh ekax djrh rks
vukosndx.k ;gh dgrs fd] vius cki ls ekax ysuk A
vukosndx.k ,d nqljs dks vkosfndk ds ckjs es HkMdkdj dku
Hkjdj vkosfndk dks fcuk dkj.k otg ds MkWV&QVdkj dj
xkyh xykSp dj viekfur djrs jgrs A vukosnd dz- 5 o 6
tc vius ?kj ij jgrs rks os Qksu o vkosfndk dh xkyh xykSp
dj /kedkrs fd rqEgkjs dkj.k ?kj cckZn gks tk,xk vius cki ds
ikl Hkksiky ,oa lkxj tkvks A vkosfndk us llqjky es jgus ds
nkSjku vukosnd dz-1]2]3 us vkosfndk dks O;fDrxr o /kkfeZd
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
t:jr ds fy, ,d :i;k Hkh ugh fn;k cfYd ekaxus ij ;gh
dgk tkrk fd] vkius ckids ;gka ls ys vkvks A 6½ ;g fd
vukosndx.kksa us vkosfndk dks etcwj fd;k fd og vius firk ls
15 yk[k :i; ngst es vkSj nsus dks dgs rc vkosfndk ds firk
vkosfndk dh llqjky x, vkSj 15 yk[k :i;s nsdj vk;s A
dqN fnu ckn vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ysdj Hkksiky vk;s vkSj
vkosfndk ds ekrk firk vius Hkksiky okys egky es :ds Fks A
ogka igqpdj vukosndx.kks us 5 yk[k :i;ks ngst es vkSj nsus
dks dgk] ij vkosfndk ds firk O;oLFkk ugh dj lds A rks
vukosnx.k fnukad 06-06-2015 dks vkosfndk dks] vkosfndk ds
ekrk firk ds ikl NksMdj pys x, vkSj /kedh ns x, rks :i;kas
dh O;oLFkk gks tk;s rks fizUlh dks Hkstuk] vkSj fcuk :i;ks ds
fizUlh llqjky xbZ rks foLQksV es fizUlh dh tku pyh tk;s rks
gels er dguk A 7½ ;g fd vkosfndk ,oa mlds ekrk&firk
us vukosnd dks Qksu dj vkosfndk dks j[kus ds fy, dgk]
vkSj ,d fnu Lo;a vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk vukosndks ds
ikl /kqys egkjk"Vª x, A ij vukosnx.kks us vkosfndk o mlds
ekrk&firk dks vi'kCn dg dj ihus rd dk ikuh ugh fn;k
cfYd ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k] vkSj dgk fd tc&tCk :i;ks
dh t:jr iMsxh rc&rc rqEgs nsuk iMsxk] oukZ fizUlh XkSl
flysUMj foLQksV es ej ldrh gS A etcwj gksdj vkosfndk o
mlds ekrk firk ,d gksVy es Bgj dj okil vius ?kj vk x,
A 8½ ;g fd vukosnx.k o vkosfndk dks mlds ekrk firk ds
ikl yk jgs Fks rc llqjky es gh vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ds
lkjs lksus pkanh ds tsoj o L=h/ku Nhudj ,oa mrjokdj vius
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
ikl j[k fy;k Fkk rFkk vukosnx.kks us llqjky es jgus ds nkSjku
vkosfndk dks Mjk /kedk dj dqN ckrs dgus dks etcwj dj mu
ckrks dks eksckbZy es Vsi dj yh vksj mUgh ckrks dks lquk&lquk
dj vkosfndk dks rykd nsus dh /kefd;k ns jgs gS A vkosfndk
vukosnxx.kks dks ekufld] 'kkjhfjd ;krukvksa ,oa ngst dh ekax
ls cgqr nq[kh gS vkSj vukosndks ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh pkgrh gS A
vr% Jheku th ls fou; gS fd vukosndx.kks ij mfpr dkuwuh
dk;Zokgh djus dh n;k djsa A lkxj fnukad 20-10-2015
vkosfndk gs gLRkk{kj vaxzsth es A
6. On careful perusal of the
allegations in the FIR, it is abundantly
clear that there are specific allegations in
respect of ill-treatment, harassment and
demand of money from the informant and her
parents. The ingredients of the offences
alleged against the petitioners are, prima
facie, disclosed. Whether the said
allegations are true or otherwise cannot be
gone into while exercising the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that there is
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
delay in lodging the FIR needs to be
considered in the background stated in the
FIR that the parents and relatives of
respondent no.2 made serious attempts to
convince the petitioners not to further ill-
treat and harass respondent no.2. However,
their efforts went in vain. In the case of
Taramani Parakh (supra), the appellant
therein left matrimonial home on 02.04.2010
and FIR was lodged on 19.05.2011 even then
the Supreme Court entertained the appeal
filed by the original complainant and in para
no.15 held thus:
15. There are allegations against
Respondent No.2 and his parents for
harassing the complainant which
forced her to leave the matrimonial
home. Even now she continues to be
separated from the matrimonial home
as she apprehends lack of security
and safety and proper environment in
the matrimonial home. The question
whether the appellant has in fact
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
been harassed and treated with
cruelty is a matter of trial but at
this stage, it cannot be said that
no case is made out. Thus, quashing
of proceedings before the trial is
not permissible.
7. The reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the case of
Preeti Gupta (supra) is misplaced in the
facts of the present case inasmuch as in that
case the appellants therein were sister-in-
law and unmarried brother-in-law of the
victim / wife, who were residing at different
places and did not visit the place of
incident, nor did live with victim / wife and
her husband. However, in the present case the
petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-
in-law respectively, who were residing in
matrimonial house jointly with respondent
no.2 and her husband. Therefore, the facts of
the present case vis-a-vis in the case of
Preeti Gupta (supra) are different. In the
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
case of Neelu Chopra (supra), the Supreme
Court was considering the case of the
appellants who were the aged parents of the
husband. In that case the husband Rajesh had
died and the main allegations were only
against him. The Supreme Court found no
cogent material against the other accused.
8. In the case of Swapnil and others
(supra), the Court has recorded that
application for restitution of conjugal right
filed by husband was withdrawn as wife was
not interested to live together with the
husband. Allegations in the FIR were vague
and the details as to place and the time of
incident were not mentioned.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of
Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another Vs. Monica and
others5 in para 11 of the judgment has held
that the facts, as alleged, in the FIR will
have to be proved which can be done only in
5 (2014) 3 SCC 383
438.2016Cr.WP.odt
the course of a regular trial. The
appreciation, in a summary manner, of the
averments made in the FIR would not be
permissible at the stage of quashing of FIR
and the facts stated will have to be accepted
as they appear on the very face thereof.
10.
In the light of the discussion in
the foregoing paragraphs, in our opinion,
there is no substance in the Criminal Writ
Petition. Hence the same stands rejected. We
make it clear that observations made herein
before are prima facie in the nature and
shall not influence further proceedings, if
any.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
