Bombay High Court

Rameshwar S/O Nivrutti Bingole ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 April, 2017

Bench: S.S. Shinde

                                                                   cra362.17
                                        1


                                        
      IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.362 OF 2017

 1) Rameshwar s/o Nivrutti Bingole,
    Age-40 years, Occu:Service,
    R/o-Rohini, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur,
    Presently residing at Post-Jarandi,
    Tq-Soyegaon, Dist-Aurangabad,

 2) Laxmibai w/o Nivrutti Bingole,
    Age-75 years, Occu:Household,
    R/o-Rohini, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur,

 3) Parshuram s/o Nivrutti Bingole,
    Age-45 years, Occu:Agriculture,
    R/o-Rohini, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur,

 4) Mahananda d/o Nivrutti Bingole,
    Age-55 years, Occu:Household,
    R/o-Rohini, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. 

                                 ...APPLICANTS 
        VERSUS             

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through Police Inspector
    Chakur Police Station,
    Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur,

 2) Chitrakala w/o Rameshwar Bingole,
    Age-29 years, Occu:Household,
    R/o-Rohini, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur,
    Presently residing at-Zhari(Bu.),
    Tq-Latur, Dist-Latur.   
                                 ...RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2017 01:12:04 :::
                                                              cra362.17
                                 2


                      ...
    Mr. Satish A. Gaikwad Advocate for  Applicants.
    Ms. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
    Mr. I.D. Maniyar Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Madde
    Advocate for Respondent No.2.       
                      ...

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

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 10TH APRIL, 2017.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 12TH APRIL, 2017.

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heard finally with the consent of the learned

counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Application is filed by the

Applicants praying therein to quash and set aside

the First Information Report bearing Crime No.1 of

2017 registered with Chakur Police Station against

the Applicants for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code on 1st January, 2017.

cra362.17

3. Learned counsel appearing for the

Applicants submits that even if the allegations in

the First Information Report (for short "FIR") are

read in its entirety and taken at its face value,

alleged offences are not disclosed. He further

submits that there is no specific overt act

attributed qua each of the Applicants, no date of

incident is mentioned and there are no specific

allegations and therefore he submits that the FIR

may be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State relying upon the

investigation papers, submits that during the

course of investigation sufficient material has

been collected by the Investigating Officer and

trial can proceed on the basis of material

collected by the Investigating Officer. She

submits that charge-sheet is filed by the

Investigating Officer in the month of March, 2017.

cra362.17

5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.2 submitted that all the Applicants harassed

the informant by making unlawful demands. Relying

upon the contents of the FIR, he submits that

overt act is attributed against each of the

Applicants and therefore this Application may be

rejected.

6. We have given careful consideration to

the submissions of the counsel appearing for the

Applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State

and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2,

with their able assistance, perused the grounds

taken in the Application, annexures thereto and

investigation papers.

7. At the outset, it needs to be stated that

while issuing notices on 30th January, 2017, this

Court by way of ad-interim relief, observed that

in case charge-sheet is not yet filed the same

cra362.17

shall not be filed till next date of hearing. In

that view of the matter, without seeking leave of

this Court, there was no question of filing the

charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer.

8. Be that as it may, we have considered the

allegations in the FIR in its entirety. So far

Applicant No.1 - Rameshwar s/o Nivrutti Bingole,

who is husband of Respondent No.2, is concerned,

there are allegations of beating, ill-treatment

and driving out Respondent No.2 from the

matrimonial home and also the illegal demand of

Rs.2,00,000/-, and therefore we are not inclined

to consider his prayer for quashing the FIR.

9. So far Applicant No.2 - Laxmibai w/o

Nivrutti Bingole is concerned, she is mother-in-

law, Applicant No.3 - Parshuram s/o Nivrutti

Bingole is brother-in-law and Applicant No.4 -

Mahananda d/o Nivrutti Bingole is sister-in-law of

Respondent No.2. Marriage of Respondent No.2 with

cra362.17

Applicant No.1 was solemnized on 30th April, 2006.

Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the

FIR, it is stated by Respondent No.2 that

initially for two years there was no illegal

demand or ill-treatment and she was properly

treated by the Applicants. Upon careful perusal of

the contents of the FIR, so far as Applicant Nos.2

to 4 are concerned, no specific incident or

specific overt act is attributed qua each of the

Applicants. There are general allegations of

demand of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Though there

are allegations of ill-treatment/harassment and

beating, nevertheless those are omnibus in nature

and on the basis of such allegations, the trial

cannot proceed further.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta

Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and another1 in the facts of that case held that

casual reference to a large number of members of

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

cra362.17

the husband's family without any allegation of

active involvement would not justify taking

cognizance against them and subjecting them to

trial. In the said Judgment, there is also

reference of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad2 wherein in

para 12 it is observed thus:

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.

There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and

2 (2000) 3 SCC 693

cra362.17

terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."

11. The Supreme Court in the case of State of

Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal (supra) held that, in

following categories the Court would be able to

quash the F.I.R. :

1 Where 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 a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3 Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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.

cra362.17

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 FIR 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 provision 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 mala fide 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.

12. Upon careful perusal of the allegations

in the FIR, as already observed, those are omnibus

in nature and do not disclose any cognizable

offence as such. Therefore, the case of the

Applicant Nos.2 to 4 is covered under Category

cra362.17

Nos.1 and 2 of the of the Categories laid down by

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

V/s Bhajan Lal (supra).

13. In that view of the matter, for the

reasons afore stated, the Application of Applicant

No.1 - Rameshwar s/o Nivrutti Bingole stands