Bombay High Court
Gangadhar S/O. Nilkanthrao Ingle ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 December, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3506 OF 2017
1. Gangadhar s/o.Nilkanthrao Ingle,
Age 53 years, Occu. Service as Engineer,
R/o.Rajura [B], Tq.Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded at present
Jaivan Nivas, Tilak Nagar,
Mukhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Usha w/o.Gangadhar Ingle,
Age 47 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
3. Prashant Gangadhar Ingle,
Age 25 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Athvan Building, Gat No.1165,
Near S.T.Colony, Wagholi,
Pune-412 207.
4. Pramod Gangadhar Ingle,
Age 22 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. as above.
5. Hanmant s/o.Nilkanth Ingle,
Age 44 years, Occu. Service as Teacher,
R/o. Manjula Nagar Bhokar,
Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
6. Asha w/o.Hanmant Ingle,
Age 39 years, Occu. Service as Teacher,
R/o. as above.
7. Ramesh Shankarrao Deshmukh,
Age 45 years, Occu. Service as Teacher,
R/o. Bhaktapura Road, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:07:44 :::
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
2
8. Savita w/o. Ramesh Deshmukh,
Age 40 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. as above.
9. Shailesh Baburao Ullewar,
Age 26 years, Occu. Councillor
and Social Work,
R/o. as above.
10. Shankar Jakaji Jadhav [Bhutale],
Age 46 years, Occu. Service as Gangman,
R/o. Rajura [B], Tq.Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
11. Raosaheb Bhaurao Ingle Patil,
Age 75 years, Occu. Agril.
R/o. as above. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Shivajinagar, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
2. Aishwarya d/o.Bharat Bora,
Age 23 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Bhagyanagar,
Juna Ausa Road, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.G.G.Kadam, Advocate for the applicants
Mrs.P.V.Diggikar, APP for the
Respondent/State
...
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 02:07:44 :::
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
3
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S.PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 05.12.2017
Pronounced on : 14.12.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
2] This Application is filed praying
therein to quash and set aside the impugned
First Information Report bearing Crime
No.171/2017, registered at Police Station
Shivajinagar, Latur, dated 16.06.2017, for
the offences punishable under Sections 376,
377, 420, 406, 384, 204, 504, 506 r/w.34 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of
POSCO Act and Section 66 [E] of the
Information Technology Act.
3] The facts in a nutshell for filing
the present Application are as under:
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
4] Respondent no.2 i.e. informant
registered the First Information Report [for
short 'FIR'] with the Shivajinagar Police
Station, Latur, on 16th May, 2017, alleging
that, she is resident of Bhagya Nagar,
Shivajinagar, Latur. She resides with her
parents. In the year 2007-08, she was in 9th
Class, at that time one Shivaji Gangadhar
Ingale was frequently trying to meet her. On
9th September, 2009, when the informant was
alone at her home at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m.,
Shivaji came to her house pretending to make
a STD call. At that time, by seeing that she
was alone at home, accused entered in the
house, locked the door from inside and raped
the informant. The informant due to said
incident was under mental trauma and was
scared and therefore did not tell the
incident to the member of the family. The
informant further alleged that, after the
said incident, accused used to frequently
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
threaten and follow her. When the informant
was in 10th Class, accused came to the house
of the informant, and asked her parents, to
solemnize the marriage of accused with the
informant. But the parents of the informant
told him that the informant is minor, and she
wants to complete her education. In the year
2010, under threat to the informant the
accused took her to one Sai Temple and tried
to solemnize the marriage against her wish.
At the relevant time, the informant refused
to marry with accused but he threatened her
with dire consequences.
5] It is further alleged that, on
04.06.2012, accused came with his friends
namely Jeevan Bidgar, Vishnu Shinde,
Vyankatesh Fartade, Satish Paul, Prashant
Ingle and with some other friends, and all of
them told her that, after she gets married
with Shivaji, parents of the informant will
accept both of them. It is alleged that, all
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
of them misguided her, and persuaded her to
come to the temple of Vithal Rukhmini at Pati
No.12, Latur. At that place, with the help of
one bogus Pandit, the marriage of the
informant and Shivaji was solemnized. After
that, accused intimated about the
solemnization of said marriage to the parents
of the informant. The parents of the
informant were left with no other option but
to accept the marriage.
6] It is further alleged that, accused
no.1 Shivaji told her that, he will take her
to his house, when his education would get
completed and till that time, she should live
with her parents. It is further alleged that
due to said promise, she consented to live
with her parents till then. When her parents
accepted the marriage of the informant with
Shivaji, and they were about to arrange the
reception, at Latur, accused no.1 and his
relatives demanded an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
to the parents of the informant. Thereafter,
the informant with the help of one social
worker Sujata Mane went to the house of
accused no.1, however, parents of accused
Shivaji did not accept her as a daughter in
law. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid
allegations, at the instance of the
informant, the FIR bearing Crime No.171/2017
has been registered, at Shivajinagar Police
Station, Latur, on 16.06.2017, for the
offence punishable under Sections 376, 377,
420, 406, 384, 204, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, by the informant.
7] Learned counsel appearing for the
applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent persons. They are working at
different places. There is no any adverse
remark against them in their entire career
till the date. It is submitted that, the
impugned FIR is false, concocted and based
upon the imaginary story cooked with an
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
ulterior motive against the applicants.
After perusal of the entire FIR, it reveals
that, the allegations made in the FIR are
general in nature. Though the FIR contains
an allegations of alleged rape, but the said
allegations at the most can be made against
only one accused i.e. accused no.1. But, in
the impugned FIR, the informant has made wild
and reckless allegations, not only against
the family members of accused no.1, but it
includes their landlord as well as friends
and neighbourers. After perusal of the
impugned FIR, it implies that, the
allegations relate back to the period from
the year 2009 to 2016. Prior to lodging the
present FIR, there was no complaint given
against accused no.1 or against his family
members earlier. After perusal of the FIR, it
reveals that the main allegations are against
only accused no.1, that he gave false promise
of marriage to respondent no.2. Only on that
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
count the impugned FIR has been lodged. But
in order to take vengeance the informant has
made wild and reckless allegations against
all the accused persons.
8] It is further submitted that, the
allegations of commission of offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code, can be leveled only against
accused no.1 with whom allegedly she was in
love affair. In the impugned FIR, sweeping
allegations have been made against the entire
family of accused no.1. Applicant no.1 is the
father of main accused Shivaji and he is
serving as an Engineer in Zilla Parishad,
Mukhed, District Nanded, and applicant no.2
is the mother of the main accused Shivaji.
Applicant no.3 is brother of main accused, he
has completed B.E. Civil and now he is
studying in 2nd year of M.E. [Structural
Engineering] course and residing at Pune.
Applicant no.4 also resides with applicant
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
no.3 and studying in last year of B.E.
[Civil] course. However, at present, he is
looking forward to join the course of
Architecture and Interior Designing. These
applicants have no concern with the main
accused Shivaji. Their names have been
included just because they are the relatives
of main accused Shivaji. Applicant nos.5 and
6 are the uncle and aunt of main accused;
they have also no concern with the said
incident. They have been implicated just
because they are close relatives of the main
accused. Applicant nos.5 and 6 reside at
Bhokar, which is taluka place in Nanded
District and more than 100 kilo meters away
from Degloor, and 200 Kilo meters from Latur
City. These applicants are serving as
teachers in the school i.e. namely 'Freedom
Fighter Shri Bhujangrao Patil Kinhalkar'
Primary School at Ritha, Tq. Bhokar, Dist.
Nanded. Needless to state that, they are
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
falsely implicated only on the count of being
in relation with the main accused Shivaji.
Applicant nos.7 and 8 are the landlords,
whereas applicant nos.1 and 2 were living on
rent. Applicant no.7 is working as a Teacher,
whereas applicant no.8 is his wife doing
house work. They are falsely implicated only
on the count that, they are the landlords of
the parents of main accused Shivaji.
Applicant no.9 is the Councilor and Social
Worker, and he had just tried to intervene
and resolve the matter between the informant
and main accused and on this count itself, he
is being implicated falsely. Applicant nos.10
and 11 are distant relatives of the main
accused Shivaji. Applicant no.10 is serving
as a Gangman in Zilla Parishad, Mukhed and he
is falsely implicated just because he is a
friend of present applicant no.1. Whereas
applicant no.11 is old aged person of 75
years. He resides in the very same village
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
where from the 'Ingale family' i.e. family
members of accused no.1 hails. It is further
submitted that, the present applicant nos.5,
6, 7 and 10 are in employment and they have
no concern with the alleged incident. Their
names have been included in the FIR just to
harass them. Some of the applicants have
certain documents, which would show that,
they were not present at the place of alleged
incident, but they were doing their regular
work / performing duties. The said applicants
are residing at the places, which are more
than 100 kilo meters away from the place
where accused no.1 ordinarily resides.
Therefore, there is no possibility that, they
would by traveling 100 kilo meters distance
so as to commit the alleged offences.
Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants submits that, the application may
be allowed.
9] On the other hand, learned APP
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
appearing for the respondent-State relying
upon the allegations in the FIR submits that,
prima facie the alleged offences are
disclosed, and therefore, needs further
investigation. He invites our attention to
the statements of the witnesses and other
material collected during the course of
investigation.
10] Though, respondent no.2 is served by
private service by the applicants and also by
regular mode of service through registry,
none appears for respondent no.2.
11] Upon careful perusal of the
allegations in the FIR, prima facie the
involvement of the accused Shivaji, applicant
no.1 namely Gangadhar Nilkanthrao Ingle and
applicant no.2 namely Usha Gangadhar Ingle
has been clearly disclosed. Overt acts have
been attributed to them. So far as applicant
nos.3 and 4 i.e., brothers of Shivaji and
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
applicant nos.5 and 6, i.e. uncle and aunt of
accused Shivaji and house owner one Ramesh
Deshmukh i.e. applicant no.7 are concerned,
as alleged in the FIR all of them used to
call the informant as daughter in law, and
brothers of Shivaji used to call her as
sister in law, and they used to assure the
informant that, as soon as education of
Shivaji is complete, her marriage will be
solemnized with said Shivaji. However, nature
of such allegations is too general and vague
without attributing any specific role or
overt act / acts. So far as other applicant
nos.8 to 11 are concerned, there are general
allegations.
12] It clearly appears from the grounds
taken in the application that, applicant nos.
5 and 6 are residing at Bhokar which is more
than 100 kilo meters away from Degloor, and
more than 200 kilo meters away from the Latur
City. It further appears that, applicant nos.
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
7 and 8 are the owners of premises, wherein
applicant nos.1 and 2, were residing on rent
basis. Applicant no.7 is working as a
Teacher, whereas applicant no.8 is his
housewife. Applicant no.9 is the councilor
and social worker, and he had just tried to
intervene and resolve the dispute between the
informant and main accused. Applicant nos.10
and 11 are distinct relatives of the main
accused Shivaji. Applicant no.11 is old aged
person of 75 years and residing in the same
village. The applicants have placed on record
proof of residence of applicant nos.5, 7 and
10 so as to demonstrate that they are
residing at different places. The applicants
have also placed on record relevant copies of
the documents showing that applicant no.3 and
applicant No.4 are prosecuting their studies
at Pune, as it is evident from the careful
perusal of the reports prepared by the
Education Officer.
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
13] So far as accused Shivaji is
concerned, sufficient material has been
collected during the course of investigation
by the Investigating Officer showing his
involvement in the alleged offence. It is
important to note that, the Investigating
Officer has mentioned in his report made
available for perusal by the APP that,
nothing has transpired during the course of
investigation about an involvement of other
accused, so far as alleged offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of the
IPC is concerned. It is also stated by the
Investigating Officer in his report that,
during the course of investigation, nothing
has transpired so as to show or demonstrate
that, the present applicants were present at
the time of alleged marriage of accused
Shivaji and the informant, on 4th June, 2012.
No any witness has stated about the
involvement or presence of the applicants.
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
However, it is mentioned that, it transpired
during the course of investigation that,
applicant no.1 Gangadhar and his wife Usha
i.e. applicant no.2, visited the house of the
parents of the informant on 7th January, 2016,
and demanded Rs.10 lacs towards dowry and for
arranging reception of marriage, and after
discussion agreed to accept Rs.3,51,000/-
from the parents of respondent no.2. To the
above extent, the statement of the witnesses
have been recorded by the Investigating
Officer.
14] Therefore, in the light of the
discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we
are of the opinion that, so far applicant
no.1 Gangadhar Nilkanthrao Ingle and
applicant no.2 Usha Gangadhar Ingle are
concerned, their prayer for quashing the FIR
cannot be entertained. However, so far as
applicant nos.3 to 11 are concerned, there
are general and vague allegations without
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
attributing specific overt acts qua them, and
allegations against some of the applicants
are inherently improbable since they are
residing far away from the place of incident.
15] The Supreme Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another1 in the facts of that
case held that casual reference to a large
number of members of the husband's family
without any allegation of active involvement
would not justify taking cognizance against
them and subjecting them to trial. In the
said judgment, there is also reference of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad2 wherein in para 12
it is observed thus:
"12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which
1 (2012) 10 SCC 741
2 (2000) 3 SCC 693
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
is to enable the young couple to
settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled
and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting
it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose
their 'young' days in chasing their
'cases' in different courts."
16] The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal3 held that,
3 AIR 1992 SC 604
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
in those categories of the case which are
mentioned in para 108 of said judgment, the
High Court would be able to quash the F.I.R.
Para 108 of the said judgment reads as under:
108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.
17] The case of applicant nos.3 to 11
is squarely covered under category nos.1 and
2 of the afore-stated categories from the
judgment in the case of State of Haryana V/s
Bhajan Lal [cited supra].
18] Keeping in view the above-mentioned
reported judgments in the cases of Geeta
Mehrotra and another [supra] and State of
Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal [supra], and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
case, we are inclined to allow this
application to the extent of applicant nos.3
to 11. Hence, the application to the extent
of applicant nos.3 to 11 is allowed. First
Information Report bearing Crime No.171/2017,
registered at Shivajinagar Police Station
Latur, dated 16.06.2017, for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 377, 420, 406,
384, 204, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, and
Section 66 [E] of the Information Technology
Act, stands quashed to the extent of
applicant nos.3 to 11. Rule made absolute on
above terms.
19] The application to the extent of
applicant nos.1 and 2 stands rejected.
20] The observations made herein above
are prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of the present application only.
The rejection of this application would not
3506.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
debar applicant nos.1 and 2 from availing of
an appropriate remedy as available in law.
[MANGESH S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
