Bombay High Court
Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh And ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 3 August, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 Cr WP 464 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No. 464 of 2007
1) Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 34 years,
Occupation: Service Medical Officer,
R/o Civil Hospital Parbhani,
C/o Shree Orthopaedics Hospital,
Wasmat Road, In front of
Vasantrao Naik Statue Parbhani,
District Parbhani.
2) Anandrao Motiram Deshmukh,
Age 72 years,
Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
District Beed.
3) Prabhawati Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 65 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
District Beed.
4) Ashok Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 45 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o At Post Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
5) Tanaji Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 35 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
Taluka Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.
6) Chandrakala Jeevanrao Vaidya,
Age 42 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Ghatnandur, Taluka Ambejogai
District Beed. .. Petitioners.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::
2 Cr WP 464 of 2007
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Jilha Peth Police
Station, Jalgaon.
2) Chhaya Suryakant Deshmukh,
Age 38 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o c/o Machindra Chokha
Nagtilak, Kurwel Road,
In front of New M.S.E.B.
At Post Taluka Mohol,
Taluka Solapur,
District Solapur. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. Pramod P. Dhorde, Advocate, for petitioners.
Shri. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.
Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Date : 3 AUGUST 2017
JUDGMENT (By T.V. Nalawade, J.):
1) The petition is filed for relief of quashment of
the FIR registered at CR No.203/2006 registered in Zilla
Peth Police Station Jalgaon and also for the quashment of
the proceeding which is filed in the said crime. Both the
sides are heard.
3 Cr WP 464 of 2007
2) Respondent No.2, original complainant, is the
wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the
parents of the petitioner No.1. During pendency of the
present proceeding petitioner No.2 died. Petitioner Nos.4
and 5 are brothers of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6
is married daughter of petitioner No.2.
3) Marriage of the first informant took place with
petitioner No.1 prior to 1999. She was working as Nurse
in one hospital where petitioner No.1 was working as
Medical Officer. It is contended that it was her inter
caste marriage and so the parents and other relatives of
petitioner No.1 were not happy with the marriage. It is
her contention that due to the circumstance that the first
informant was not from the caste of the petitioners, ill
treatment was given to her. Allegations are made that the
petitioners were asking her to bring money. It is her
contention that due to the harassment given to her she
started living separate from the petitioners from June
1999 and she was living with her brother. FIR was given
on 8-10-2006 and crime is registered for offence under
section 498-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4 Cr WP 464 of 2007
4) It is the case of the petitioners that the first
informant was already married and this circumstance was
concealed from petitioner No.1. It is contended that when
the petitioners came to know about this fact, the first
informant returned to her parents house. It is contended
that only to extract money the first informant has made
false allegations. It is contended that petitioner No.1 has
filed divorce petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act and only after that the first informant approached
police and the FIR was given very late. It is contended
that petitioners Nos.2 to 6 were living separate from
petitioner No.1 and there was no occasion or opportunity
for them to give ill-treatment to the first informant.
5) The submissions made show that it is not
disputed that the first informant had started living
separate from petitioner No.1 from June 1999. Copy of
the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by petitioner No.1 is
produced on the record and it shows that divorce
proceeding was filed on 13-6-2006. The FIR came to be
given on 8-10-2006. The contentions made in the present
petition are made in the Hindu Marriage Petition also.
5 Cr WP 464 of 2007
6) There is virtually no explanation with the first
informant as to why she did not approach police for about
7 years if she was deserted in the year 1999. There is
clear possibility that only after filing of divorce proceeding
she filed the report and the intention behind the report is
to pressurise the husband and other relatives so that they
come to some settlement as per her desire. The
circumstance that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are living separate
from petitioner No.1 but they are mentioned as accused in
the FIR shows that she is interested only in pressurizing
the husband and his relatives.
7) Recently, In the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State
of U.P. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821 the Apex
Court has given directions to prevent misuse of the
provision of section 498-A of the Indian Petition Code.
Prior to that in the case reported as 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri)
488 (Bhushan Kumar Meen v. State of Punjab) the Apex
Court had observed that if prima facie case is not made
out for offence under section 498-A IPC the FIR and the
case itself is liable to be quashed. Similar observations
are made in AIR 2013 SC 181 (Geeta Mehrotra v. State
6 Cr WP 464 of 2007
of U.P.). It is further laid down that when there are vague
allegations the proceeding and the FIR need to be
quashed.
8) In the present matter also the contents of the
FIR show that very vague allegations are made against all
the petitioners. It can be said that in stead of filing written
statement in the divorce proceeding she preferred to go to
police. As there was no specific incident with her she
made vague allegations for registration of crime. In view
of these circumstances this Court holds that it will be
misuse of provision of section 498A of the IPC and process
of law if the proceeding is allowed to continue.
9) In the result, the petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
and the subsequent proceedings filed in the said crime are
quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in those terms.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
