Jaypal S/O Natha More And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 1862 Bom

                                               5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                     1



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5052 OF 2016 

          1.       Jaypal s/o. Natha More,  
                   Age: 32 Years, Occu: Service 

          2.       Natha s/o. Amaruta More,  
                   Age: 62 Years, Occu: Labour.  

          3.       Panchaphulabai w/o. Natha More,  
                   Age: 60 Years, Household.  

          4.       Ramkishan s/o. Natha More,  
                   Age: 38 Years, Occu. Labouror

          5.       Ashok s/o. Natha More,  
                   Age: 30 Years, Occu. Labouror.  

          6.       Laxmibai w/o. Ramkishan More,  
                   Age 35 Years, Occu. Household.  

                   All R/o. Atharwadi, Tq.Dist.Hingoli

          7.       Babasaheb s/o. Manikrao Thoke,  
                   Age: 31 Years, Occu. Labouror,  
                   R/o. Adgaon Bazar, Tq.Jintur, 
                   Dist. Parbhani.  

          8.       Prajawati d/o. Shamrao Dhule,  
                   Age: 18 Years, Occu. Labouror
                   [The complainant has mentioned the 
                   name of applicant No.8 as Prajawati 
                   s/o. Jaypal More]
                   R/o. Mhaisgavan, Tq.Kalamnuri 
                   Dist. Hingoli.                APPLICANTS
           
                           VERSUS 




::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
                                                          5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                           2



          1.       The State of Maharashtra 
                   Through Police Station Narsi [Namdeo] 
                   Tq. Dist.Hingoli.  
                   [Copy to be served on Police 
                   Prosecution of High Court of Bombay 
                   Bench at Aurangabad] 

          2.       Jayashri w/o. Jaypal More,  
                   Age: 28 years, Occ: Household,  
                   R/o. Kalamkonda [Ku], Tq.Kalamnuri 
                   Dist. Hingoli 
                   Police Station Kalamnuri    RESPONDENTS

                               ...
          Mr.D.M.Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants 
          Mr.S.P.Deshmukh,APP for the Respondent/State
          Mr.S.S.Londhe, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                               ...

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

Reserved on : 17.04.2017 Pronounced on : 20.04.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

3. This Application is filed with the

following prayer:

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

B) The F.I.R., complaint, registered with Narsi (Namdeo) Police Station vide C.R.No. 12/2016 under Section 498 (a), 323, 494, 504, 34 of I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set aside.

4. It is submitted by the learned

counsel appearing for the applicants that,

applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent

no.2 i.e. complainant, and applicant nos.2

and 3 are in-laws of respondent no.2; while

the rest of the applicants are brother-in-law

and sister-in-law of the complainant. It is

submitted that, except applicant no.1, rest

of the applicants never resided together in

one house at any point of time after marriage

of respondent no.2 with applicant no.1. It is

alleged in the FIR that, the complainant went

to reside at village Atharwadi, though

applicant no.1 is serving at Thane. It is

alleged that, applicant no.1 did not take

respondent no.2 at Thane and ask her to

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

reside at Atharwadi, District Hingoli, which

is native place of applicant no.1. It is

alleged by the complainant that, all the

accused persons used to harass and ill-treat

respondent no.2 for fulfillment of illegal

demand of Rs.70,000/-. There are also

allegation of instigation. It is submitted

that, even if the allegations in the FIR are

taken as it is, an ingredient to constitute

an alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323,

494, 504 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code are

not attracted. Only with a view to harass

applicant no.1 and his relatives, respondent

no.2 has lodged the First Information Report.

It is further submitted that, so far as

applicant no.4 - Ramkishan Natha More,

applicant no.5 Ashok Natha More and applicant

no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned,

there are no allegations against them in the

proceedings instituted under the Domestic

Violence Act. It is further submitted that,

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

respondent no.2 did file complaint before the

District Women and Child Development Officer

i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell, and in

the said complaint also, there are no

allegations against Ramkishan Natha More and

Laxmibai Ramkishan More. It is submitted

that, all family members are implicated

including husband of sister of applicant no.

1, namely, Babasaheb Manikrao Thoke. It is

further submitted that, applicant nos.5 to 8

are not at all residing with applicant no.1

and applicant nos.4 to 8 are residing

separately, and they are implicated only with

a view to harass the applicants. The

complainant started residing with her parents

since 18th September, 2013, till date. The

learned counsel appearing for the applicants

invites our attention to the grounds taken in

the application, and also annexures thereto

and submits that, the application deserves to

be allowed.

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

5. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for respondent - State, relying

upon the investigation papers and the

allegations in the FIR, submits that, there

are serious allegations. All the applicants

participated in the marriage ceremony of

applicant no.1 with applicant no.8. It is

submitted that, though the marriage of

applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 is

subsisting; still applicant no.1 has

performed marriage with applicant no.8, and

therefore, there are allegations in the FIR,

which would attract ingredients to constitute

offence under Section 494 r/w.34 of the

Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he submits

that, the application may be rejected.

6. The learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.2 submits that, applicant no.1

with the consent and connivance of the other

applicant nos.2 to 7 got married with

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

applicant no.8, though the marital tie

between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is

intact/in subsistence. Therefore, he submits

that, the application may be rejected.

7. We have heard the learned counsel

appearing for the applicants, learned APP

appearing for the respondent - State, and the

learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2

at length. We have carefully perused the

allegations in the FIR, and we are of the

opinion that, except applicant no.4 Ramkishan

Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai

Ramkishan More, case of the other applicants

deserves no consideration.

8. So far as applicant no.4 Ramkishan

Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai

Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no

allegations either in the complaint

instituted under the Domestic Violence Act by

respondent no.2, and also in the complaint

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

filed on 21st November, 2013, before the

District Women and Child Development Officer

i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell. Upon

careful perusal of the allegations in the

FIR, there are omnibus and general

allegations against the aforesaid two accused

persons.

9. So far as other accused i.e.

applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are

concerned, as rightly submitted by the

learned APP appearing for respondent - State

and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.2 that, during subsistence of

marital tie between applicant no.1 and

respondent no.2, there is an allegation in

the FIR that, applicant no.1 has performed

second marriage with applicant no.8 -

Prajawati. Unless the investigation is taken

to the logical end, the truth will not

surface on record.

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

10. In that view of the matter, we are

not inclined to entertain the application to

the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and

8. Hence their application stands rejected.

11. In the light of discussion in the

foregoing paragraphs, the FIR vide Crime No.

12/2016, registered with Narsi [Namdeo]

Police Station, for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504, 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, to the extent of applicant

no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6

Laxmibai Ramkishan More, stands quashed and

set aside.

12. Rule is made absolute on above

terms. Criminal Application stands disposed

of accordingly.

13. An observations made hereinabove are

prima facie in nature and confined to the

adjudication of the present application.

This order will not preclude the applicants,

5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

whose applications stands rejected from

availing of an appropriate remedy in case the

Investigating Officer, after completion of

investigation, files report under Section 173

[2] of the Criminal Procedure Code.

              [K.K.SONAWANE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC