Bombay High Court
Shri. Charandas S/O. Fakruji ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 21 August, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2108APL373.17-Judgment 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 373 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1] Shri.Charandas s/o. Fakruji Pathade, Aged
80 yrs, Occ. : Retired, R/o. Plot No.10, Shri
Laxmi Krupa Society, Beside Kale Layout,
Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Tah.& Distt.
Yavatmal.
2] Sau. Suvita w/o. Charandas Pathade, Aged
66 yrs, Occ. : Housewife, R/o. Plot No.10,
Shri Laxmi Krupa Society, Beside Kale
Layout, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Tah. &
Distt. Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] State of Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer, Mankapur, Nagpur.
2] Sau. Deepika Vivek Pathade, Aged about 41
years, Occupation : Housewife, R/o. C/o.
Devkabai Govindrao Shende, Plot No.34,
Utthannagar, Near Sai Sewa Ashram,
Gorewada Road, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.P.Kariya, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.P.S.Tembhare, Addl.Public Prosecutor
for the respondent/non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Sabahat Ullah, counsel for the respondent/non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 21.08.2017
2108APL373.17-Judgment 2/7
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
The criminal application is admitted and heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this criminal application, the applicant No.1, aged 80
years and the applicant No.2, his wife have sought the quashing and
setting aside the first information report bearing No.61 of 2017
registered against them for the offence punishable under section 498-A
read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
3. Few facts giving rise to the application are stated thus:-
The non-applicant No.2 is the wife of the son of the
applicants-Vivek. The applicants are therefore the father-in-law and the
mother-in-law of the non-applicant no.2. The marriage between Vivek
and the non-applicant No.2 was solemnized on 27/05/2009. The
applicants were residing at Yavatmal and after the solemnization of the
marriage of Vivek and the non-applicant No.2, the couple was residing
at Wardha. It appears that there were some disputes between Vivek and
the non-applicant No.2 in the year 2017 and the non-applicant No.2,
lodged a report against Vivek and the applicants in Mankapur Police
Station, Nagpur. In the said report, it is stated by the non-applicant
No.2 that her husband Vivek had treated her badly since the inception
of the marriage. It is alleged in the report that Vivek always doubted
2108APL373.17-Judgment 3/7
the character of the non-applicant No.2 and ill-treated her mentally and
physically. It is alleged in the report that the applicants used to taunt
the non-applicant No.2 and used to inflict mental cruelty on her. It is
alleged in the report that they used to ill-treat the non-applicant No.2
by taunting and asking her as to what she had brought from her
parental house. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicants did not
support the non-applicant No.2 when she complained to them about
Vivek and when the non-applicant No.2 went to Yavatmal, the
applicants had left the house and locked the same. Apart from the said
allegations, nothing is alleged in the complaint filed by the non-
applicant No.2 against the applicants. A second report was thereafter
lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on 07/04/2017. There is an
improvement and addition in the allegations levelled by the non-
applicant No.2 against the applicants in this report. It is alleged in this
report by the non-applicant No.2 that when she used to complain to
them about Vivek they used to tell her that their son was an engineer
and why should he travel to his college on a two wheeler. It is alleged
in the said report that the applicants used to tell the non-applicant No.2
that she should ask her parents to give a car and then everything would
be all right. It appears that after the second complaint was filed by the
non-applicant No.2, the first information report was lodged against the
applicants for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with
section 34 of the Penal Code.
2108APL373.17-Judgment 4/7
4. Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants,
submitted that it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first
information report registered against the applicants with a view to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of
justice. It is submitted that the applicant No.1, the father-in-law of the
non-applicant No.2 is 80 years old and he and his wife-the applicant
No.2 resided at Yavatmal, whereas the non-applicant No.2 and her
husband Vivek resided at Wardha. It is stated that in the first report
lodged by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicants and Vivek there
is no allegation that the applicants used to demand a car from the
parents of the non-applicant No.2. It is stated that it is apparent from
the reading of the reports lodged by the non-applicant No.2 that the
allegations levelled by the non-applicant No.2 against the old
applicants, who are not even residing in the matrimonial home are false
and improbable. It is stated that it is only alleged in the first report
lodged by the non-applicant No.2, of which no cognizance was taken by
the non-applicant No.1, that the applicants used to taunt the non-
applicant No.2. It is stated that the said allegations cannot result in
registering the first information report against the applicants for the
offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the
Penal Code. It is stated that by applying the tests laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
reported in 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, the first information report
2108APL373.17-Judgment 5/7
registered against the applicants is liable to be quashed and set aside as
the allegations made in the second report lodged by the non-applicant
No.2 are inherently improbable.
5. Shri Tembhare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the non-applicant No.1, submitted that on the basis of the
complaint lodged by the non-applicant No.2, the first information report
was registered against the applicants. It is submitted that since in the
second report filed by the non-applicant No.2 it is stated that the
applicants used to ask the non-applicant No.2 to get a car from her
parents, the first information report is registered against them.
6. Shri Sabahat Ullah, the learned counsel for the non-
applicant No.2, has submitted that the applicants treated the non-
applicant No.2 with cruelty whenever they came to Wardha or non-
applicant No.2 visited Yavatmal. It is submitted that since the applicants
used to ask the non-applicant No.2 to get a car from her parents, the
first information report is rightly registered against them.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the reports filed by the non-applicant No.2 in the month of
March and April, 2017 and on a consideration of the circumstances of
the case, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the first
2108APL373.17-Judgment 6/7
information report registered against the applicants. The applicant
No.1 is an old man aged 80 years and he is not residing in the
matrimonial home and is residing at Yavatmal. The non-applicant No.2
was residing at Wardha in a nuclear family consisting of the non-
applicant No.2, her husband Vivek and her daughter. In the first report
lodged by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicants and Vivek, it is
only stated that the applicants used to taunt the non-applicant No.2. If
at all a demand was ever made by the applicants, the non-applicant
No.2 would have in the first place stated in the first report filed by her
that the applicants were pestering her with the demand of securing a
car from her parents. The non-applicant No.2 has levelled certain
allegations against the applicants in the first report lodged by her.
However, the allegations levelled by the non-applicant No.2 against the
applicants in the first report are of general nature and it is only alleged
that the applicants used to taunt the non-applicant No.2. Taunting a
daughter-in-law on some occasions would not amount to cruelty, as
defined under the provisions of section 498-A of the Penal Code. In the
first report, there is no allegation against the applicants that they used
to demand a car from the parents of the non-applicant No.2. We find
that when the first information report was not registered against the
applicants on the basis of the first complaint filed by the non-applicant
No.2, the non-applicant No.2 filed a second report in the month of
April, 2017 levelling an additional allegation pertaining to the demand
2108APL373.17-Judgment 7/7
of a car by the applicants from the parents of the non-applicant No.2.
We find that the allegation made by the non-applicant No.2 in this
regard is an afterthought and the same is made only with a view to rope
the applicants in the criminal case, though they are not residing in the
matrimonial home and are residing at Yavatmal. We find that the
allegation in the second report filed by the non-applicant No.2 relates to
a fact which appears to be improbable, in the circumstances of the case.
It would therefore be necessary to quash and set aside the first
information report registered against the applicants, who are old and
are residing in a different town which is far away from Wardha where
the non-applicant No.2 was residing with her husband Vivek.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application
is allowed. The first information report registered against the applicants
bearing No. 61 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 498-A
read with section 34 of the Penal Code as also the proceedings arise
there from, are quashed and set aside, as far as the applicants are
concerned. Order accordingly.
In view of the disposal of the application, the Criminal
Application (APPP) No.920 of 2017 is disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
