Bombay High Court
Vishwaradhya S/O Mahaling Swamy ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 September, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2989.16Appln
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2989 OF 2016
1. Vishwaradhya S/o Mahaling Swamy
Age : 34 years, Occ : Rudraksha Business,
R/o Near Old Water Tank,
Bhalki.
2.
Smt. Nirmala @ Neelamma W/o Mahling Swamy
Age : 54 years, Occ : Household,
R/o D-35, Bar 77, Jangamwadi Math,
Waranasi 221 001.
3. Mahaling S/o Gurubasayya Swamy
Age : 59 years, Occ : Archak,
R/o D-35, Bar 77, Jangamwadi Math,
Waranasi 221 001.
..APPLICANTS
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Incharge Police
Station Officer, Bhagya Nagar,
Police Station, Nanded
Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.
2. Supriya W/o Vishwaradhya Shastri
Age : 30 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Vedant Nagar, Nanded,
Tq & Dist. Nanded.
...
Advocate for Applicants:Mr.P.R. Katneshwarkar
APP for Respondent/State: Mr. D.R. Kale
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. S.B.
Ghatol Patil
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2016 00:00:19 :::
2989.16Appln
2
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd August, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 8th September, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (S.S. SHINDE, J)
1. In a nutshell, background facts for
filing the present Criminal Application are
as under :-
Respondent no.2 namely, Supriya
Shastri married to applicant no.1
Vishwaradhya Shastri in the year 2007 as per
Hindu rites and rituals. According to her,
at the time of the marriage, 25 tolas of gold
was given to the applicants besides utensils.
After marriage, applicant nos.1 to 3, who are
the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law
respectively of respondent no.2, treated her
well for some time. However, thereafter, they
demanded some silver articles and car. All of
2989.16Appln
them started ill-treating her on non-
fulfillment of their demands. The Criminal
Case filed for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code on her
report, however, that ended in acquittal of
the applicants. According to Respondent No.2,
she was driven out along with her son by
applicant no.1. She started residing at her
parents house at Vedant Nagar at Nanded.
Thereafter also she was abused by applicant
no.1. On the birthday of her son, the
applicants came at Nanded and created
nuisance and also threatened her. Therefore,
she filed First Information Report at Bhagya
Nagar, Police Station on 11.04.2016. Hence,
this Criminal Application is filed by the
applicants for quashing the F.I.R.
2. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants submits that in the entire
FIR, there is no disclosure of any specific
2989.16Appln
incident, which resulted into commission of
the offence punishable under Section 498-A or
any other offence under the Indian Penal
Code. No date, time of the alleged commission
of offence has been mentioned. Even though
there is a reference of an alleged incident
of 24th November, 2015, the FIR was not filed
immediately in the month of November and the
same has been filed belatedly after about 5
months i.e. on 11.04.2016. It is submitted
that the father and mother of applicant no.1
reside at Waranasi. The father is a pious
man and is Archak in Jagatguru Vishwaradhya
Sinhasan Math, known as Jangamwadi Math at
Kashivishwanath Waranasi. The learned counsel
further submits that the allegations in the
F.I.R. are vague and general. An omnibus
statement containing wild allegations without
referring to any specific incident has been
made by respondent no.2. He submits that the
FIR is lodged with a view to harass the
2989.16Appln
applicants, which is an abuse of process of
law.
3. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants further submits that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. against the
applicants, even if accepted in their
entirety, do not disclose commission of any
offence. He further submits that the
allegations made in the F.I.R. are absurd and
inherently improbable, and therefore, the
application deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/State,
relying upon the investigation papers,
submits that during the course of
investigation, the statement of the
respondent no.2 is recorded. The F.I.R. needs
further investigation and therefore, this
Court may not entertain the application.
2989.16Appln
5. The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 i.e. the informant, relying
upon the contents of the F.I.R. and other
documents placed on record, submits that the
application deserves to be rejected.
6.
We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent/State and
the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2. With their able assistance, we have
perused the averments in the application,
annexures thereto and the investigation
papers produced by the learned A.P.P.
7. The applicants have placed on record
the copy of the judgment and order passed by
the Court presided over by the Senior Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
2989.16Appln
Bhalki at Exhibit `B'. It appears that even
on earlier occasion the report was filed by
Respondent No.2 by making almost similar
allegations and the said report was quashed
by the Court concerned thereby acquitting the
present applicants. The said report was filed
making allegations against the applicants,
which would attract the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-
A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
8. Upon careful perusal of the other
documents placed on record by the applicants,
it appears that applicant no.1 has filed the
Petition under Section 13(1) (i) & (iii) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 31st December,
2012, for divorce before the Court of Senior
Civil Judge at Bhalki. In the said Petition,
the reply is filed by the present Respondent
No.2, wherein it is admitted that the parents
2989.16Appln
of applicant no.1 are ordinarily residing at
Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh. The learned
counsel appearing for the applicants rightly
submitted that the parents of applicant no.1
are residing at Varanashi and the child
namely Prathiviraj also is prosecuting his
studies at Varanashi. It further appears that
the Court of Bhalki has granted custody of
the child Prathiviraj to applicant no.1 on
20th May, 2015. The child is in the custody of
applicant no.1, therefore, the allegations in
the report that the applicants visited the
maternal home of the informant for
celebrating the birthday of the son, appears
to be contrary to the record. It is prima
facie absurd and inherently improbable. All
other allegations in the F.I.R. are
repetition of the allegations which were made
in the earlier F.I.R., which has already been
quashed by the Competent Court at Bhalki.
2989.16Appln
9. Upon careful perusal of the
allegations in the F.I.R., it is seen that
there are no specific allegations qua each of
the applicants and no specific overt acts are
attributed. No specific dates are mentioned
in the F.I.R., except that the applicants
came on 24th November at the house of the
parents of the respondent no.2 and threatened
her. Lodging of such F.I.R. belatedly after
4-5 months of such alleged incident also
creates serious doubt about truthfulness and
genuineness of the allegations in the said
F.I.R..
The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal1 held that in
the following circumstances the Court would
quash the F.I.R. :
1. Whether the allegations made in the
F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted
1 AIR 1992 SC 604
2989.16Appln
in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused;
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code, except under an order of
Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code;
Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the applicant;
4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code;
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R.
or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused;
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act, (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provisions in
the Code of the concerned Act, providing
2989.16Appln
efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with malafide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
10. Upon considering the allegations in
the F.I.R. and documents placed on record, in
the light of the investigation papers, the
case of the applicants would fall under the
aforementioned category Nos. 1, 3 and 5.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of
the considered opinion that the continuation
of further investigation or proceedings based
upon the F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2
would be abuse of process of law. Hence, the
Crime No.89/2016 registered at Bhagya Nagar
Police Station, Nanded on the basis of the
F.I.R. dated 11.04.2016 lodged by respondent
no.2, for the offences punishable under
2989.16Appln
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w S.34 of the
Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed.
12. The application is allowed and the
F.I.R. lodged by respondent no.2 is quashed.
The application stands disposed of
accordingly. However, we make it clear that
the observations made in this judgment are
confined only to the adjudication of this
application and shall not have bearing on
other cases pending, if any.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
...
SGA
