Pravin Baburao Kamble And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1616 Bom

                                1                                Cri.A-3833-15




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3833 OF 2015

 1.       Pravin Baburao Kamble,
          Age: 29 yrs., Occ. Service,
          r/o c/o Gurudeepsingh Parihar,
          Plot No. 17 Savarkar Nagar,
          N-5 Cidco, Aurangabad.

 2.       Vimal Baburao Kamble,
          Age: 60 yrs., occ. Household

 3.       Baburao Eknath Kamble,
          Age 65 yrs. Occ. Pensioner,

 4.       Shashikant Baburao Kamble,
          Age 35 yrs., occ. Agri.
          Applicant No. 2 to 4 Plot no. 342,
          Talvesh Road, Near Balaji Mandir, Udgir,
          Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

 5.       Saroja Baburao Kamble @
          Saroja Ravi Dhongare,
          Age 39 yrs., occ. Household,
          r/o Indra Nagar, Udgir,
          Dist. Latur.

 6.       Minakshi Baburao Kamble,
          @ Meena Nandu Dhongare,
          Age 42 yrs., occ. Household,
          r/o near Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad(A.P.)

 7.       Usha Mauktaram Katwate,
          Age 44 yrs. Occ. Household,
          r/o : Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur,
          Dist. Latur.

 8.       Sangita Dilip Hatangale,
          Age: 30 yrs., Occ. Household,
          r/o Near Police Station, Nilanga,
          Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.                     ...APPLICANTS




::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:09:49 :::
                                      2                                Cri.A-3833-15


          versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Home Secretary,
          Home Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai.

 2.       The Police Inspector,
          Police Station, Chakur,
          Ta. Chakur, Dist. Latur.

 3.       Mrs. Maya w/o Pravin Kamble,
          Age: 21 yrs, occ. Education,
          r/o c/o Sudam Dattatraya Tonpe,
          at post Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur,
          Dist. Latur.                               ...RESPONDENTS

                                  .....
 Mrs. Ratna R. Mane, Advocate for Applicants
 Mr. S.G. Karlekar, APP for Respondents No. 1 and 2
 Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 3
                                        ...

                                         CORAM :   S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                   K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

                                 RESERVED ON :     3rd APRIL, 2017
                               PRONOUNCED ON:      11th APRIL, 2017.


 JUDGMENT :-( PER : K.K. Sonawane, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of parties.

2. Applicant No. 1 being husband and applicants No. 2 to 8 being

relatives of husband of the first informant - Mrs. Maya w/o Pravin

Kamble respondent No. 3-herein are arraigned in the offence

punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") registered at

Chakur Police Station, Tq. Chakur, District Latur pursuant to first

3 Cri.A-3833-15

information report (for short "FIR") bearing crime No. 146 of 2015

filed by wife - Mrs. Maya w/o Pravin Kamble on 14-06-2015. Being

aggrieved with the accusation for the alleged crime, the applicants

have moved present application under section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") and prayed to exercise inherent

jurisdiction of this Court to quash and set aide impugned FIR

bearing Crime No. 146 of 2015 registered against the applicants on

the basis of false and frivolous allegations made only with an ill

intention to harass the applicants.

3. The facts giving rise to the present application in brief are

that, first informant - Mrs. Maya w/o Pravin Kamble approached to

the Police of Chakur Police Station, District Latur and ventilated the

grievance that her marriage was solemnized with applicant No. 1

Pravin Kamble on 11-05-2014 as per Hindu rites. After the marriage

she joined the company of husband for cohabitation at her

matrimonial home located at Udgir. Applicant No. 1 - Pravin Kamble

was employed as Professor in Chhatrapati Shahu Engineering

College at Aurangabad. He alone used to reside at Aurangabad. It

has been alleged that husband was reluctant to take wife - Mrs.

Maya Kamble at Aurangabad and he was disliking her. First

informant grumbled that members of her matrimonial home i.e. her

in-laws, brother-in-law - Shashikant Baburao Kamble, Sisters-in-

law, namely, Saroja, Minakshi, Usha and Sangita in furtherance of

their common intention maltreated and harassed the first informant

4 Cri.A-3833-15

- Mrs. Maya Kamble and they insisted her not to stay at matrimonial

home. They all made demand of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs)

to establish another Hotel of liquor/Bar. The parents of wife - Mrs.

Maya Kamble gave understanding to husband - Pravin Kamble and

other inmates of the matrimonial home, however, all efforts found

unavailing. According to first informant, members of matrimonial

home always scolded her on trifle reason. They used to keep her

unfed and used to confined her in the house. The husband - Pravin

Kamble and his relatives caused mental and physical torture to wife-

Mrs. Maya Kamble and eventually driven her out of the house. The

hapless wife Mrs. Maya Kamble came to the parents home and at

last approached to the Police for penal action against husband and

his relatives.

4. Pursuant to allegations, Police of Chakur Police Station District

Latur, registered the offence bearing Crime No. 146 of 2015 for the

offence punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with section

34 of the IPC and set penal law in motion. Investigating Officer has

recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with facts of the case

and collected the relevant documents. In the meantime, so-called

accused - applicants preferred the present application and agitated

the propriety and legality of the impugned FIR, which is a subject-

matter of the present application.

5. The learned counsel for applicants vehemently submits that

allegations nurtured in the impugned FIR are false, frivolous and not

5 Cri.A-3833-15

sustainable one. All the allegations agitated in the impugned FIR are

vague, omnibus and not sufficient to prove the charges of cruelty

against the applicants. The applicants have not committed any

crime, but they are falsely implicated by making false allegation in

this case. The impugned FIR is misuse of process of law. Applicant

No. 1 Pravin Kamble and his parents are insisting the first informant

Mrs. Maya Kamble for cohabitation with her husband at matrimonial

home, but she refused to budge in favour of husband and indulged

in frivolous litigations against them. According to learned counsel,

applicant No. 5 -Saroja Kamble, applicant No. 6- Minakshi Kamble,

applicant No. 7 - Usha Katwate and applicant No. 8- Sangita

Hatangale all are married sisters of applicant No. 1 Pravin Kamble

and they all separately residing with their family members at their

respective matrimonial homes. They have no concerned at all with

alleged crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case. The

learned counsel appearing for applicants drawn our attention

towards affidavit in-reply filed on behalf of applicant No. 1 on record

in regard to the residence of applicants No. 5 to 8. In affidavit in-

reply, applicant No. 1 Pravin Kamble has categorically contended

that applicants No. 5 to 8 are his married sisters and they all are

separately residing with the families members at their respective

matrimonial homes. Applicant No. 5 is residing at Indiranagar area,

Udgir with her sons and husband, which is far away from the house

of applicants No. 1 to 4. Applicant No. 6 is also residing separately

in Indiranagar area, Udgir with her sons and husband. She had no

6 Cri.A-3833-15

concerned at all with alleged crime. The learned counsel submits

that during the relevant period Applicant No. 6 was staying at

Hyderabad for employment purpose. Applicant No. 7- Usha is widow

and separately residing with her daughter and a son at Nalegaon Ta.

Chaukur, whereas applicant No. 8 is also separately residing at

Nilanga town District Latur. According to learned counsel, there are

no specific allegations or overact attributed to the applicants. All the

allegations are vague, omnibus, therefore, the learned counsel for

the applicants asserted that there are no circumstances on record to

constitute cognizable offences. Hence, he prayed to quash and set

aside impugned FIR.

6. In refutal, learned APP appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2

and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 - first

informant opposed the contentions propounded on behalf of

applicants and submitted that the allegations contained in the

impugned FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences against

the applicants. The first informant in explicit manner made

allegations against the applicants in regard to her mental and

physical cruelty as well as illegal demand of money. According to

learned respective counsels as prima facie case is made out against

the applicants, it would unjust and improper to exercise inherent

powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the applicants.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 relied upon the

legal guidelines delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal

7 Cri.A-3833-15

Appeal (Crl.) No. 1643 of 2007 (Didigam Bikshapathi and

another Vs. State of A.P) decided on 29th November, of

2007, in which it has been observed that, 'inherent jurisdiction

under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly,

carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the

tests specifically laid down in the section itself. The powers under

section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to prevent abuse of

process of the court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

Eventually, the learned counsel appearing for respective

respondents prayed not to nod in favour of applicants and dismiss

the application.

7. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments

advanced on behalf of both sides at length. We have also delved

into the relevant documents including extract of the impugned FIR

filed on record. Admittedly, there was marital discord in between the

spouses, and the impugned FIR filed on behalf of first informant -

Mrs. Maya Kamble is the fallout of the marital discord in between

spouses. There are allegation of mental & physical cruelty as

envisaged under section 498-A of the IPC. The applicants raised

objection that the impugned FIR is based on false and frivolous

allegations, which are not sustainable and appreciable within ambit

of law. Obviously, the applicants challenge the impugned FIR on the

ground that if these allegations are taken at their face value and

accepted in its entirety do not prima facie constitute offences

8 Cri.A-3833-15

against the applicants. Moreover, allegations 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.

8. It is true that the marriage between applicant No.1 and first

informant was solemnized in the month of May 2014. Thereafter,

she joined the company of her husband and started cohabiting with

inmates of matrimonial home at Udgir. She was treated by husband

and other inmates of matrimonial home in good manner for about

three months. Thereafter, she was subjected to maltreatment and

cruelty on the ground that husband was disliking her and they were

insisting first informant to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs)

from her parents for the purpose of establishing another Hotel of

liquior/Bar. Considering the nature of allegations nurtured in the

FIR, it appears that the first informant has made specific allegations

against husband and inmates of the matrimonial home, which are

reproduced herein below.

"yXukuarj eyk ek>s irhus dlscls 3 efgus mnxhj ;sFkhy ?kjh ukanoys R;kuarj ek>s irh gs vkSjaxkckn ;sFkhy N=irh 'kkgw baftfu;jhax dkWyst] vkSjaxkckn ;sFks izk/;kid Eg.kwu dk;Zjr vlY;kus uksSdjh fufeRr vkSjaxkckn ;sFksp jkgr vlY;kus eyk vkSjaxkckn ;sFks rw ekÖ;klkscr jkgk;ps ukgh rwÖ;k ckikus yXukr gwaMk deh fnyk vkgs- rw eyk ilar ukghr rw>h ekÖ;klkscr jkg.;kph yk;dh ukgh-

rjhi.k eh okjaokj ekÖ;k irhl fouo.kh dsyh vlrk ek>s irh lwV~Vh eqGs vkys vlrk ekÖ;k lkljps ?kjkrhy O;Drh lklw foey ckcwjko dkacGs] lkljk ckcwjko ,dukFk dkacGs] ls-fu-f'k{kd] fnj

9 Cri.A-3833-15

'k'khdkar ckcwjko dkacGs] u.kank ljkstk ckcwjko dkacGs] feuk{kh ckcwjko dkacGs] mÔk ewDrhjke dk;oVs] laxhrk fnyhi gksrkxGs ;kauh lokZauh laxuer d:u rw bFks jkgk;ps ukgh- rwyk tj bFks jgk;ps vlsy rj nwljs ckj gkWVsy Vkdk;ps vkgs- rjh rw rqÖ;k ekgs#u 10 yk[k #- ?ksowu ;s rsOgk eh lnj ckc gh ekgsjdMhy O;Drhauk lkaxhryh uarj mnxhj ;sFks ek>s vkbZ ofMy jkes'oj ukjk;.k vknekrs- lw[knso ukxukFk cksjksGs gs loZt.k feGwu ek>s irhl o lkljps yksdkauk fouarh dsyh dh] vkeP;kdMs ,o<s ckj gkWVsy Vkdk;yk iSls ukghr rqEgh vkeP;k ysdhyk ukanok vls Eg.kkys vlrk iSls vlrhy rjp rweP;k ewyhyk ukano.kkj vkgksr ukghrj eh nqljs yXu dj.kkj vkgs- rwEgh vkeP;k cjkscjhps ukghr rwyk vkEgh ukano.kkj ukgh Eg.kkys o ekÖ;k vkbZ ofMykal o ukrsokbZdkl gkdywu fnys uarj lkljps yksd eyk Vkspwu cksy.ks] mik'kh iksVh nksu nksu fnol ?kjkr Mkacwu Bso.ks ek>h irh gs rwÖ;k'kh eh 'kkjhfjd laca/k Bsow bPNhr ukgh Eg.kwu ekjgku dsyh rjh Ik.k eh =kl lgu dsyk ijarw ekÖ;k uo&;kus o lkljps yksdkauh eyk mnxhj ;sFkwu ?kjkckgsj gkdywu fnys uarj eh ykrwj ;sFks efgyk vR;kpkj dsanz ykrwj ;sFks vtZ fnyk o eyk ukanfo.;kl Li"V udkj fnyk o [email protected]@2015 jksth uGsxko ;sFks ekÖ;k lkljps yksd ;sowu rw dsysyh dk;Zokgh ijr ?ks ukghrj rw>s [kwi okbZV gksbZy Eg.kwu eyk ekjgk.k dsyh-"

9. On minute scrutiny of the aforesaid aspersion contained in

the impugned FIR reveals that if all the allegations are taken at their

face value and accepted in its entirety would prima facie constitute

an offence of cruelty as contemplated under section 498-A of the

IPC as well as offence of using criminal force and criminal

intimidation etc against applicants No. 1 to 4 herein. Therefore, we

are of the opinion that it would be unjust and improper to quash and

set aside the impugned FIR at the behest of applicants No. 1 to 4.

10 Cri.A-3833-15

10. However, the circumstances on record demonstrate that the

applicant No. 5 - Saroja, applicant No. 6- Minakshi, applicant No. 7-

Usha and applicant No. 8-Sangita all are the married sisters-in-law

of first informant and they all are residing separately with the family

members at their respective matrimonial homes. The applicants

have also filed affidavit in-reply on record to the extent that

applicants No. 5 to 8 are the married sisters and residing separately

along with family members at their respective matrimonial homes.

In such circumstances, it is hard to believe that these married

sisters had an participation or involvement in the alleged act of

cruelty to the first informant as alleged in the FIR. Investigating

Officer has recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with

the facts of the case. But, there are no specific allegations or

overtact attributed to these applicants No. 5 to 8 in their statements

to cause mental or physical cruelty to the first informant. Therefore,

in our opinion, continuation of proceedings against applicants No. 5

to 8 pursuant to impugned FIR will be the exercise of futility and

abuse of process of Court. There is no specific role attributed to the

said applicants. Therefore, we find that there is no propriety to allow

continuation of the proceedings against the applicants No. 5 to 8 as

they all are residing separately with their family members at their

respective matrimonial homes. The applicants have placed on record

affidavit to that effect, which appears to be sufficient to draw

inference about residence of applicants No. 5 to 8 at their respective

matrimonial homes.

                                 11                                Cri.A-3833-15


 11.     The      Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

Vs. Bhajanlal1 held that in following categories the Court would be

able to quash the FIR.

1 Whether the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted 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;

3. 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 accused;

4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-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 or the concerned Act, providing 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

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

12 Cri.A-3833-15

instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

12. In the case in hand, so far as applicants No. 5 to 8 are

concerned, their case is covered under category nos. 1 and 5 of the

said category by way of illustration in Bhajanlal's Case (Supra).

The view taken by us also supported from the observations of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs.

State of Jharkhand in criminal appeal No. 1512 of 2010 (arising out

of SLP (Cri. No. 4684 of 2009) delivered on 13th August, 2010.

13. In such peculiar circumstance, we are of the opinion that the

application deserves to be partly allowed. The prosecution against

applicants No. 1 to 4 is required to be continued pursuant to the

impugned FIR bearing crime No. 146 of 2015 registered at Chakur

Police Station. There are allegation prima facie to constitute offence

against them. However, allegations against rest of the applicants

No. 5 to 8 are concerned, appears to be unsustainable and

improbable in view of their separate residence with the family

members at their respective matrimonial homes. We find that

allegations made in the FIR against them appears inherently

improbable and absurd on the basis of which no prudent person can

even reach to just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for

proceeding against applicants No. 5 to 8. Hence, we preferred to

quash and set aside the impugned FIR to the extent of applicants

No. 5 to 8 herein.

13 Cri.A-3833-15

14. In the result, criminal application is partly allowed. The

impugned FIR bearing crime No. 146 of 2015 registered at Chakur

Police Station, District Latur stands quashed and set aside to the

extent of applicants No. 5 to 8, namely, 5-Saroja Baburao Kamble

@ Saroja Ravi Dhongare, 6 - Minakshi Baburao Kamble, @ Meena

Nandu Dhongare, 7- Usha Mauktaram Katwate, 8-Sangita Dilip

Hatangale.

15. However, the criminal application filed on behalf of applicants

No. 1 to 4, namely, 1- Pravin Baburao Kamble, 2-Vimal Baburao

Kamble, 3-Baburao Eknath Kamble, 4-Shashikant Baburao Kamble

stands rejected.

16. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Accordingly, the

application is disposed of. No order as to costs.

17. We make it clear that an observations made herein-before

are prima facie in nature and confined to an adjudication of present

application only, and the same would not preclude applicants No. 1

to 4 from filing the application for discharge, if any, before the

learned trial Court.

                Sd/-                                 Sd/-
         [ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ]               [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

 MTK