Bombay High Court
Sumanbai W/O. Vijay Chinchvankar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 July, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2183 OF 2017
1. Sow. Sumanbai w/o. Vijay Chinchvankar,
Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired HM,
R/o. Rajgurunagar [Khed],
Dist. Pune.
2. Gajendra s/o. Vijay Chinchwankar,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o. D-1, Flat No.2, Dnyanganga Society,
Vadgaon [Bk], Pune.
[His application rejected as
per Court's order dtd.02.05.2017.
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Itwara Police Station,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. Sow. Ishwari w/o. Gajendra Chinchwankar,
Age: 31 Years, Occ: Household,
R/o. C/o. Sudhakarrao Ambulgekar,
[Nandedkar] Pathak Galli,
Near Mittika Sher, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the
applicants
Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for the Respondent/
State
Mr.R.A.Jaiswal, Advocate holding for
Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:32:25 :::
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 13.07.2017
Pronounced on : 25.07.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. This Application is filed for
quashing and setting aside the First
Information Report bearing Crime No.143/2016
registered at Itwara Police Station, Nanded,
dated 13th October, 2016, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498 [A], 323, 504,
506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, and
additional offences included in the said
Crime pursuant to the supplementary statement
for the offence punishable under Section 354
[A], [1], [2], [3], 354 [B], 354 [C], 354[D],
376 [D], 376 [E], 377 and 511 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants made following submissions:
5. The additional statement and the
FIR/complaint lodged by respondent no.2-
informant against the applicants is nothing
but a concocted version of false incident
having no grain of truth. The allegation set
out in the FIR, and supplementary statements
have been done to harass the applicants on
the false allegation. The allegation set out
in the FIR, and the additional statement are
so absurd, inherently, improbable that no
prudent man can reach to such conclusion.
The allegations set out by respondent no.2 is
outcome of instigation of the parent and
brother with mala fide intention and ulterior
motive to meet lust of applicant no.2 wherein
the informant is tool in their hand. The
circumstances that the father is not allowed
to meet children is an indication of mala
fide intention and deliberate harassment
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
caused by respondent no.2 on fictitious
grounds. The FIR and allegations set out in
the complaint and supplementary statement is
on the face of the fact is a white lie. The
circumstances do not disclose commission of
any offence, but it reveals counter revenge
on the instigation of the brother-in-law of
applicant no.2 i.e. Narayan Sudhakar
Nandedkar, through his sister.
6. The FIR lodged by applicant no.2 at
Singhgad Police Station, Pune, it reveals
that the FIR of respondent no.2 is an
afterthought. Besides that, the delay is
unexplained in respect of alleged ill-
treatment for long period. Applicant no.2 is
a responsible father with commendable record
of his service career. Applicant no.2 love
his family i.e. wife and children. He has
given his best to the family. Taken wife and
daughters to Singapore for Diwali
Celebration. Despite this, he was regularly
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
taking family for outing. He has taken care
of his children education. There was no
ground all of a sudden to make such vague
allegation without logic. The Hon'ble High
Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and
again said that close relatives of husband
should not be roped unnecessarily. The
informant supplementary statement, and the
review of entire circumstances only lead to a
conclusion that prima facie, no offence is
constituted.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State relying
upon the investigation papers, and the
allegations in the supplementary statement of
respondent no.2 recorded on 22nd January,
2017, submits that the alleged offences are
clearly disclosed, and therefore, needs
further investigation.
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
8. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, and the learned
APP appearing for the respondent-State. With
their able assistance, perused the
allegations in the FIR, and also the
investigation papers. We have carefully
perused the contents of the FIR registered on
13th October, 2016, by respondent no.2. In the
entire FIR, there is no single allegation
against applicant no.1 Sumanbai Vijay
Chinchvankar, who is mother-in-law of
respondent no.2. It is only in the
supplementary statement of respondent no.2
recorded on 22nd January, 2017, there are
general allegations made against applicant
no.1. It is relevant to mention that the FIR
was lodged on 13th October, 2016, and
belatedly, on 22nd January, 2017, the
supplementary statement of respondent no.2
was recorded, and in the said statement first
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
time applicant no.1 Sumanbai Vijay
Chinchvankar is implicated. Upon careful
perusal of the contents of the supplementary
statement, there are general allegations
against applicant no.1; there are no specific
instances / incidents are quoted nor any date
is mentioned of such alleged ill-treatment or
harassment. In that view of the matter, we
are of the considered view that, so far
applicant no.1 Sumanbai Vijay Chinchvankar is
concerned, the FIR deserves to be quashed.
9. 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
1 (2012) 10 SCC 741
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
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
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
2 (2000) 3 SCC 693
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
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."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal3 wherein it
is held that, 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.
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
3 AIR 1992 SC 604
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
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.
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.
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
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.
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.
11. The case of applicant no.1 Sumanbai
Vijay Chinchvankar is covered in category
2183.2017 Cri.Appln..odt
no.1 and 5 of the afore-stated categories.
Therefore, for the reasons afore-stated, the
impugned First Information Report bearing
Crime No.143/2016, registered at Itwara
Police Station, Nanded, to the extent of
applicant no.1 Sumanbai Vijay Chinchvankar,
is quashed and set aside.
12. So far applicant no.2-Gajendra Vijay
Chinchwankar is concerned, his application is
already rejected on 2nd May, 2017.
13. The Criminal Application is partly
allowed. Rule is made absolute on above
terms. Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
