Shaligram S/O. Champatrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6115 Bom

                                             1                                      jg.apl 374.17.odt

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

                 Criminal Application (APL) No. 374 of 2017

Shaligram S/o Champatrao Vilayatkar 
Aged about 77 years, Occ. Nil, 
R/o Waghapur, Yavatmal.                                                          .... Applicant

      //  Versus //

(1) State of Maharashtra
      Through Police Station Officer, 
      Police Station, Mankapur, Nagpur.

(2) Sou. Dipika Vivek Pathade,
      Aged about 41 years, Occ. 
      Household, R/o. C/o. Devkabai 
      Govindrao Shende, Plot No. 34, 
      Uttannagar, Near Sai-Seav Ashram
      Gorewada Road, Nagpur.                                                .... Respondents

Shri M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the applicant
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 
no. 1
Shri A. H. Shende, Advocate for the respondent no. 2
                                                        
                                    CORAM      : SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 16-08-2017.

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

Admit. The criminal application is heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the quashing

.....2/-

2 jg.apl 374.17.odt

of First Information Report (FIR) No. 61/2017 dated 7-4-2017 registered

against the applicant under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the

Penal Code.

Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the

respondent no. 1 was not justified in registering the FIR against the

applicant who is admittedly not the husband of the complainant -

woman and is also not a relative of the husband. It is stated that the

applicant is the friend of the father of the husband of the complainant

and in the report lodged by the respondent no. 2 - complainant, it is

stated that the applicant used to do some pooja in the matrimonial house

of the complainant, with a view to practice black magic. It is stated that

in view of the clear provisions of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, the

FIR could not have been registered against the applicant since he is

neither the husband nor the relative of the husband of the complainant -

woman.

On a reading of the complaint and the provisions of Section

498-A of the Penal Code, it appears that the respondent no. 1 committed

a serious illegality in registering the FIR against the applicant who is

neither the husband of the complainant nor the relative of the husband of

the complainant-woman. Only the husband or the relative of the

.....3/-

3 jg.apl 374.17.odt

husband is liable to be punished for committing the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. In the circumstances of the case,

the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is

allowed. First Information Report No. 61/2017 registered against the

applicant under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code is quashed and set aside, insofar as the applicant is concerned.

Order accordingly.

                JUDGE                                                 JUDGE




wasnik




                                                                                           ...../-