Nitin S/O. Harish Mirchandani And ... vs The Commissioner Of Police, Civil ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5913 Bom

                                      1                                      jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                      Criminal Writ Petition No. 18 of 2017

(1) Nitin S/o Harish Mirchandani
      Aged about 28 years, Occu : Business, 
      Permanent resident of Sindhi Colony, 
      Khamla, Nagpur. 

(2) Rupa Wd/o Harish Mirchandani
      Aged about 62 years, Occupation
      Housewife, R/o Khamla, Nagpur. 

(3) Smt. Kirti @ Reshma W/o Ravi Talreja,
      Aged about 34 years, Occu : Housewife, 
      R/o Indra Complex, Vidisha (M.P.).

(4) Smt. Kusum @ Babbi W/o Suresh Chandwani,
      Aged about 35 years, Occu : Housewife, 
      R/o Seoni (M.P.).

(5) Suresh Kanhyalal Chandwani,
      Aged about 37 years, Occu : Business, 
      R/o Seoni (M.P.).

(6) Ravi Rajkumar Talreja,
      Aged 37 years, Occu : Business, 
      R/o Vidisha (M.P.).                                                 .... Petitioners

      //  Versus //

(1) The Commissioner of Police, 
      Civil Lines, Nagpur. 

(2) Police Station Officer, Police
      Station, Rana Pratap Nagar, 
      Nagpur. 

(3) Savendra s/o Kashmirilal Berry,
      Aged about Major, Occu : Business, 
      Resident of Row house No. 1, 
      Rahul Complex, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.                               .... Respondents


                                                                                      .....2/-




::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017                              ::: Downloaded on - 19/08/2017 00:25:56 :::
                                            2                                      jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt


Shri  R. M. Daga, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent          
nos. 1 and 2 
None for the respondent no. 3 though served.
                                                         
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 14-08-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The criminal writ

petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the

learned counsel for the parties.

By this criminal writ petition, the petitioners seek the

quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 297/2016 registered against the

petitioners on 24-8-2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 315 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

The respondent no. 3 is the father of Dolly who was married

to the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 is the mother of the

petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the sisters of the

petitioner no. 1. The petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are the husbands of the

petitioner nos. 3 and 4 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that

.....3/-

3 jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt

Dolly, the wife of the petitioner no. 1 left the matrimonial home and

after six months therefrom, on 24-8-2016, the respondent no. 3, the

father of Dolly lodged the report with Police Station, Rana Pratap Nagar

against the petitioners. On the basis of the said report filed by the

respondent no. 3, FIR was registered against the petitioner nos. 1 to 6

under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 315 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

petitioners have sought the quashing and setting aside of FIR bearing

no. 297/2016.

Shri Daga, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

at the outset that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are not desirous of pressing

the prayers made in the petition and the writ petition would be

prosecuted by the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 only. It is submitted by taking

this Court through the complaint filed by the respondent no. 3 that there

are no allegations whatsoever against the respondent nos. 5 and 6, the

husbands of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are the sisters-in-law of

Dolly and against the respondent nos. 3 and 4, there is a vague allegation

that whenever they came to the parental home, there were disputes and

bickerings between Dolly and the petitioner no. 1. It is submitted that

FIR could not have been registered against the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 in

the absence of any allegations whatsoever against them in the complaint

.....4/-

4 jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt

filed by the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 3

resides at Vidisha in Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner no. 4 resides at

Seoni in Madhya Pradesh. It is submitted that the report has been

lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 with

a malafide intention. It is submitted that even if the allegations in the

FIR are accepted at their face value in the entirety against the petitioner

nos. 3 and 4, prima facie, offences under Sections 498-A, 315 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act cannot be made out. It is submitted that while allowing

anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner nos. 3 to 6, this Court

had observed that though the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 were residing away

from the matrimonial home, allegations of general nature are made

against them in the complaint. It is submitted that the FIR registered

against the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the prayer

made in the writ petition. It is, however, fairly admitted by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that in the report lodged by the respondent

no. 3 against the petitioners, no specific allegation is made against the

petitioner nos. 3 and 4 and the allegations against them are vague. It is

fairly admitted that in the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 3 in

.....5/-

5 jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt

the Police Station on 24-8-2016, no allegation is made against the

petitioner nos. 5 and 6. It is stated that an appropriate order may be

passed in the circumstances of the case.

It appears on a reading of the complaint filed by the

respondent no. 3 before the respondent no. 2 that it is mentioned in the

complaint that whenever the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 used to come to

the parental home, there were more bickerings between Dolly and the

petitioner no. 1. There is no allegation levelled against the petitioner

nos. 5 and 6 by the respondent no. 3 in the complaint dated 24-8-2016.

Not a single allegation is levelled against the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 in

the complaint dated 24-8-2016. On a reading of the FIR, it appears that

a very vague and general allegation is made against the petitioner nos. 3

and 4 who are residing at Vidisha and Seoni and no specific allegation is

made against them. It appears that the allegations levelled against the

petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are of general nature and they are simply accused

with a view to rope them in the proceedings under Section 498-A of the

Penal Code. No allegations, whatsoever are made against the petitioner

nos. 5 and 6 who are the husbands of the petitioner nos. 3 and 4

respectively. In the absence of any complaint against the petitioner nos.

5 and 6 who were residing at Vidisha and Seoni at the relevant time, the

FIR could not be registered against them. So also, the offences under

.....6/-

6 jg.cri.wp 18.17.odt

Sections 498-A, 315 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could not have been registered

against the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of the complaint. Even if

the allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety at their face

value, prima facie no offence could be made out against the petitioner

nos. 3 to 6 under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 315 read with 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Similar observation was made by this Court while allowing an application

made by the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 for grant of anticipatory bail. By

applying the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to

time in the matter of quashing of FIR, it would be necessary to quash and

set aside the FIR registered against the petitioner nos. 3 to 6.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, criminal writ petition is

allowed. FIR No. 297/2016 registered against the petitioner nos. 3 to 6

at Police Station, Rana Pratap Nagar, Nagpur for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 315 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and set

aside. Order accordingly.

                  JUDGE                                                 JUDGE
wasnik


                                                                                              ...../-