Bombay High Court
Sangita W/O Ashok Bhuktar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 April, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
{1}
928 sr.no..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6411 OF 2016
1. Sangita w/o Ashok Bhuktar,
Age : 34 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Hadapsar Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.
2. Uttam s/o Kundlik Khillare,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Dombivali Mumbai,
Tq. & Dist. Mumbai.
3. Vishal s/o Pralhad Bhagat,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Advocate,
R/o Opposite Bharat Gas Agency,
Padegaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Ashabai w/o Ashok Ghodke,
Age: 40 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Adol, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.
5. Ashok s/o Baliram Ghodake,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
6. Ratnamala w/o Uttam Chatse,
Age : 55 years, occu. Household,
R/o Ajegaon,
Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.
7. Uttam s/o Rajaram Chatse,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
8. Latabai w/o Kiran Chatse,
Age : 40 Years, Occu. Household,
R/o As above.
9. Kiran s/o Gyandeo Chatse,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
10. Kailash s/o Kiran Chatse,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Education
R/o As above.
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:40:00 :::
{2}
928 sr.no..odt
11. Ranjana Bhujang Khillare,
Age : 32 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Repa,
Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.
12. Bhujang s/o Kundlik Khillare,
Age : 38 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
13. Tushar s/o Pralhad Bhagat,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Ekta Nagar Buldhana,
Tq. & Dist. Buldhana.
14. Pralhad s/o Kisan Bhagat,
Age : 62 years, Occu. Rtd.
R/o As above.
15. Sagarbai w/o Pralhad Bhagat,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Household,
R/o As above.
16. Prashant s/o Pralhad Bhagat,
Age : 33 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o As above.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Mahamaya w/o Prashant Bhagat,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Household,
R/o C/o Laxman Dhande,
Siddharth Nagar,
Hingoli.
Mr. S. J. Rahate, Advocate for Applicants
Ms. P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent statw
Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 18th April, 2017.
JUDGMENT : [ PER S.S. SHINDE,J]:-
{3}
928 sr.no..odt
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of parties.
This application is filed with the following prayer :-
"B. The FIR bearing Crime No. I-377/2016 registered
at Police of City, Hingoli U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34
of I.P. Code against the petitioners be kindly quashed
and set aside further with a direction to quash and set
aside all other proceedings taken-up on the basis of the
said FIR"
2] Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that
there is delay in lodging the FIR. The FIR is filed after the husband of
respondent No.2, Mr. Prashant Bhagat has filed petition for dissolution of
marriage. He submits that even if the allegations in the FIR are considered in
its entirety, the alleged offences are not disclosed.
3] He further submits that though the applicant No.3 in Aadhar
Card is shown as resident of Buldana, he is a practicing advocate at
Aurangabad. He submits that the applicant Nos. 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 to 12 are
residing separately and not in the matrimonial home of respondent No.2. He
submits that even the married sister of the husband are made accused.
There are general allegations in the FIR without attributing any overt act,
qua each of the applicants. There are no dates of incident mentioned in the
FIR and on such omnibus allegations, there are bleak chances of conviction
of the applicants. Therefore, further continuation of the proceedings based
upon the crime No.I-377/2016, will be an exercise in futility and abuse of
process of law. Therefore, he submits that this application may be allowed.
4] On the other hand, learned APP invited our attention to the
statements of various witnesses and submits that the allegations made
against the applicants in the FIR are supported by the witnesses. Therefore,
the application for quashing the FIR may be rejected.
{4}
928 sr.no..odt
5] Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that apart from
the allegations in the FIR, the respondent No.2 filed application on 30 th
March, 2016 to the P.I. of police station Hingoli, making specific allegations
against applicant No.2. He also invites our attention to the other proceeding
initiated by respondent No.2 and also letter addressed to the Superintendent
of Police on 9.9.2016 by her. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR
will have to be taken as it is and can be tested only during trial. He invited
our attention to the statement of witnesses and submits that the application
may be rejected.
6] We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned
APP for the State and counsel for respondent No.2 at length. With their able
assistance perused the grounds taken in the application, annexures thereto,
contents of the FIR and also investigation papers, reply filed by respondent
No.2 so also additional affidavit filed by the applicants. So far as the
applicant No.2 is concerned, in addition to allegations in the FIR we find that
there is further complaint filed by the informant against him addressed to
Police Inspector, Hingoli. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations in the
FIR as against applicant Nos. 2,3,11, 12 and 13, though residing separately,
we are not inclined to entertain their prayer for quashing the FIR against
them. Hence, their prayer for quashing the FIR, stands rejected.
7] So far as applicant Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are concerned, the
allegations against them in the FIR are reproduced hereinbelow :
"v/kwu e/kwu ekÖ;k uo&;kps ukrsokbZd jRuekyk mRre pkVls ¼eko'kh½] mRre
jktkjke pkVls ¼ekolk½] yrkckbZ fd'ku pkVls ¼eko'kh½] fd'ku fijkth pkVls
¼ekolk½] loZ jk- vtsxko ;kauh vkeP;k ?kjh HksVhlkBh vkys rsOgk R;kauh Eg.kkys
fd rq÷;k yXukr vkepk ekuiku Bsoyk ukgh vkeP;k lkscr yXukr okn ?kkryk
vkEgh iz'kkar ;kl nqljh ukSdjhph ck;dks d#u nsrks vls Eg.kwu fpFkko.kh fnyh
gksrh- uarj dkgh fnolkauh ek÷;k uo&;kps ukrsokbZd vk'kkckbZ v'kksd ?kksMds o
frpk uojk v'kksd ?kksMds jk- vkMksG ft- fgaxksyh o vtsxko ;sFkhy jkgwy fd'ku
pkVls] o iq.ks ;sFkhy ekol cfg.k laxhrk v'kksd Hkw[rkj ;kauh vkys gksrs o R;kauh
Ik.k eyk rq÷;k ekgsjP;k yksdkauh yXukr vkEgkyk ekuiku fnyk ukgh rlsp
ygku ysdjkaph mUgkG;kP;k lqV~Vhe/;s ek÷;k lkljh vkys vlrk R;kaph lks;
?ksryh ukgh Eg.kwu eyk f'kohxkG d#u ykxys o ek÷;k vaxkoj ekj.;kdfjrk
vkyh gksrh-
{5}
928 sr.no..odt
8] We have also carefully perused the statements of the witnesses.
Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, so also the statement of
the witnesses, the allegations against the applicant Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 and
10 are omnibus, without attributing any specific overt act against them and
without mentioning specific incident. We are satisfied that those applicants
are not residing at matrimonial place and residing at different places. Some
of the places are far away from Buldana. Therefore, keeping in view the
exposition of law by the Supreme Court, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and
another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741,
G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
and in the matter of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604
we are inclined to consider the prayer of those applicants for quashing the
FIR. Accordingly, the following order :-
[i] The application of applicant Nos.2,3,11,12 & 13 is
concerned, the same stands rejected.
[ii] The application of applicant Nos. 1,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10
stands allowed. The FIR No.I-377 of 2016,stands quashed qua those
applicants.
[iii] It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove
are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the
present application.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
