Bombay High Court
Dattatraya Vasantraol Tambe And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 877 OF 2009.
1. Dattatraya S/o. Vasantrao Tambe,
Age: 44 Years, Occu: Business.
2. Vasantrao S/o Laxman Tambe,
Age: 79 Years, Occu: Nil.
3. Premabai W/o Vasantrao Tambe,
Age: 69 Years, Occu: Household.
Nos. 1 to 3 R/o.240/41, Sangale Galli,
Ahmednagar.
4. Sau. Ashabai W/o Suresh Sali,
Age: 55 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Survey No.48/3/1,
Vadgaonsheri, Pune: 411 014.
5. Sadhana W/o Yogesh Thanekar,
Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household.
6. Yogesh S/o Madhukar Thanekar,
Age: 51 Years, Occu: Service.
Nos. 5 and 6 R/o. 4, Shivsundar
Society, Kulgaon, Ambarnath, Thane,
District Thane.
7. Vandana W/o Rajendra Ekhe,
Age: 48 Years, Occu: Household.
8. Rajendra S/o Madhukar Ekhe,
Age: 49 Years, Occu: Service.
Nos. 7 and 8 R/o 24, Taramani Society,
Apana Ghar Road (P), Four Bungalow,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ....Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:52 :::
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
2
Through Dhule City Police Station, Dhule.
2. Hemlata @ Janki W/o. Dattatraya Tambe,
Age: 42 Years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Plot No.23, Bahubali Nagar,
Sakri Road, Dhule. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.W. Munde, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : JULY 21, 2017.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
. The petition is filed for relief of quashment of F.I.R. No.
147/2009 registered in Dhule City Police Station for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Both the sides are heard.
2) Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of first informant,
respondent No. 2. Their marriage took place on 22.5.2005. The first
informant was living separate from the husband from 26.7.2006 and
she was living in Dhule.
3) Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.
1. During pendency of the proceeding, petitioner No. 2 - Vasantrao
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
Tambe, father of petitioner No. 1 died. Petitioner No. 4 is maternal
aunt of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 5 is sister of petitioner No. 1
and petitioner No. 6 is husband of petitioner No. 5. Petitioner No. 7
is sister of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 8 is husband of
petitioner No. 7.
4) In the F.I.R., allegations are made by respondent No. 2
that proper treatment was given to her only for about 8 to 10 days
after the marriage when she went to her husband's house from
Ahmednagar. She has made allegations that after that all the
accused started asking her to bring money from her parents as the
husband wanted to spend money in wielding workshop. It is her
contention that the accused were insulting her as the demand was
not met with. She has made allegations that the husband used to
give beating even in the night time.
5) It is the case of first informant that the sisters of
husband used to come to Ahmednagar to visit Mauli Mandir and on
those occasions, they used to instigate her husband and in-laws to
give illtreatment to her. She has given specific incident dated
14.6.2009 in the F.I.R. and she has made allegations that all the
eight accused came to her house from Dhule, they insisted that she
should sign on divorce papers and they gave alternative that she
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
should give Rs. One lakh. Allegations are made that on that
occasion, they pushed and pulled her father and she was beaten by
the husband. She has made allegations that the persons from
husband's side snatched and took away her ornaments which was
her Stridhan ( fL=/ku ). She gave report to police on 20.7.2009.
6) The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that even
when petitioner No. 2, father-in-law of the first informant was aged
about 79 years and he was paralysed and he could not have walked
or stood on his leg, he is involved in the matter and that shows that
the first informant was ready to go to any extent. The learned
counsel submitted that the married sisters of husband are falsely
implicated and they had no reason to get involved in the matrimonial
dispute. The learned counsel submitted that it is admitted fact that
the sisters are living at Thane and Mumbai in their matrimonial
houses and so, it cannot be believed that they were instigating
petitioner No. 1 to give illtreatment to the first informant. The
learned counsel submitted that petitioner No. 4, maternal aunt of
husband, is residing at Pune and she had also virtually no reason to
come to Ahmednager and instigate the husband of first informant to
give illtreatment.
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
7) This Court has carefully gone through the allegations
made in the F.I.R. The allegations are omnibus in nature and there
are no specific allegations against the relatives of the husband like
petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. They are living separate and the record to
that effect which include copy of ration card, copies of identity card
issued by Election Commission is produced. In the family of
husband, there were only his parents.
8) When the specific incident alleged in the F.I.R. took place
on 14.6.2009, the F.I.R. came to be given on 20.7.2009, after more
than one month. The reasons given in the F.I.R. that she tried to
convince the relatives of husband and due to that no F.I.R. was given
immediately, does not appear to be probable in nature. She was
living separate from the husband for about three years prior to the
date of aforesaid specific incident. Her case that they had given
option either to give divorce or to give Rs. one lakh, does not appear
to be probable atleast as against petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. As there are
vague allegations and they are not probable in nature and there are
other circumstances, this Court holds that it will not be proper and
just to allow the investigation to be made as against petitioner Nos.
4 to 8. That will cause unnecessary harassment to them. There is
clear possibility of exaggeration of things and false implication of
Cri.W.P.No.877/2009
them to pressurize the husband.
9) The learned counsel for first informant placed reliance on
the observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as
AIR 1992 SC 604 [State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan
lal and Ors.]. The observations were made in altogether different
context and serious crime was involved in the said matter. Present
matter has arisen out of matrimonial dispute and there is clear
possibility that first informant has exaggerated the things and
allowing the respondents to continue with the proceeding would
amount unnecessarily harassment to petitioner Nos. 4 to 8.
10) In the result, the petition of petitioner Nos. 4 to 8 is
allowed. The F.I.R. in respect of those petitioners stands quashed
and set aside. However, the petition of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3
stands dismissed. The petition of petitioner No. 2 is disposed of as
abated as petitioner No.2 died during pendency of the matter.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
