Bombay High Court
Arti W/O Devanand Mahor And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 February, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
3708.16appln
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3708 OF 2016
1. Arti W/o Devanand Mahor
Age : 25 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Santosh Nagar, Katraj,
Dist. Pune.
2. Sagar S/o Sanjay Sartale
Age : 22 years, Occ : Labour,
R/o Santosh Nagar, Katraj,
Dist. Pune.
3. Samadhan S/o Raghunath Sartale
Age : 55 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o At Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
(Current address :- Anjangaon Surji,
Tq. Sategaon, Dist. Amravati.)
4. Kausalyabai W/o Samadhan Sartale
Age : 50 years, Occ : Household,
R/o At Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon
(Current address :- Anjangaon Surji,
Tq. Sategaon, Dist. Amravati)
5. Rekha W/o Ganesh Mahor
Age : 32 years, Occ : Household,
R/o At Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
6. Sunita W/o Ajay Sartale
Age : 24 years, Occ : Household,
R/o At Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2017 01:00:51 :::
3708.16appln
2
7. Priyanka W/o Vijay Sartale
Age : 26 years, Occ : Govt. Servant,
R/o Anjangaon Surji,
Tq. Sategaon, Dist. Amravati.
8. Rekha W/o Ganesh Gurav
Age : 36 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
9. Archana D/o Ganesh Gurav
Age : 19 years, Occ : Education,
R/o Waki, Tq. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Kavita W/o Amol Sartale
Age : 23 years, Occ : Household,
R/o C/o Babulal Pandurang
Chaudhari, at Khadakdevla,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Applicants:Mr.V.B. Jogdand Patil
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Deshmukh
Advocate for respondent no.2:Mr.B.S. Deshmukh
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Dated: February 28, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S.SHINDE, J):-
At the outset, the learned counsel
3708.16appln
appearing for the applicants, on
instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the
application in respect of applicant no.1 -
Arti W/o Devanand Mahor and applicant no.3 -
Samadhan S/o Raghunath Sartale.
2. Leave granted. The application is
dismissed as withdrawn so far as applicant
nos.1 and 3 is concerned.
3. So far other applicant nos.2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9 are concerned, we have
carefully perused the allegations in the
First Information Report. The allegations
against them are not specific, no overt acts
are attributed to each of the applicants. No
specific date is mentioned. The allegations
are omnibus.
The contention of the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 that,
the allegations in the complaint filed by
respondent no.2 on 7th September, 2015 to the
Women Vigilance Cell, Superintendent of
Police Office, Jalgaon may be considered is
devoid of any merits since the said complaint
was considered and disposed of. Upon careful
perusal of the investigation papers only the
3708.16appln
name of the respondent's father-in-law,
mother-in-law, sister of the husband and one
Samadhan are mentioned by the other witnesses
whose staements have been recorded.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal1 held that,
in following categories the Court would be
able to quash the F.I.R.
"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,
1AIR 1992 SC 604
3708.16appln
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.
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
3708.16appln
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.
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.
In that view of the matter, keeping in
view the exposition of law by the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana
(supra), the case of the applicant nos. 2, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 is fall under category nos.
1 and 2.
3708.16appln
5. The Supreme Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another2 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. Prasad3 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 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
2 (2012) 10 SCC 741
3 (2000) 3 SCC 693
3708.16appln
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."
6. For the reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, the application is
partly allowed. The F.I.R. bearing Crime
No.192 of 2015 registered with Pachora Police
Station for the offence under Section 498(A),
420, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code is quashed and set aside so far as
applicant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are
concerned and the application stands disposed
of accordingly.
7. The observations made hereinbefore,
are prima facie in nature and for the
3708.16appln
purposes of adjudication of the present
application only.
(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
...
SGA
