Bombay High Court
Sagar S/O Kishor Bodhe And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 June, 2017
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
1 APL546.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 546 OF 2016
PETITIONER : 1] Sagar S/o Kishor Bodhe,
Aged about 27 years, Occu. Police Constable,
R/o Police Quarter, Gadchiroli,
Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli,
2] Prashant S/o Kishor Bodhe,
Aged 35 years, Occu. Service,
3] Sau. Deepali W/o Prashant Bodhe,
Aged 30 years, Occu. Household,
Applicant no.2 and 3, R/o C/o Shri Ashok
Kalbande, Vihani Vidyaniketan, Navegaon
Complex, Post Mudzha, Tah. Gadchiroli,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
4] Sau. Kusumbai W/o Kishor Bodhe,
Aged 52 years, Occu. Cultivation,
R/o Near Buddha Vihar, Shirpur,
Post Shirpur, Tah. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
5] Vipinchand S/o Mahadeo Bodhe,
Aged 55 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Ward No.1, Shirpur, Tah. Wani,
Dist. Yavatmal.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Wani. Dist. Yavatmal.
2] Shri Bandu S/o Mahadeo Askar,
Aged 50 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Manish nagar, Z.P. Colony,
Wani, Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2017 00:14:24 :::
2 APL546.16.odt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1
Mr. P. D. Katkade, Advocate for the respondent no.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
MURLIDHAR G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 06, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule is returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2] The applicants are before this Court seeking quashment
of First Information Report No.389/2016, dated 20.5.2016 registered
at Police Station, Wani, Distt. Yavatmal for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
3] Mr. Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants, at the
outset, makes a statement, on instructions, that during pendency of
the application, applicant no.1 - Sagar Bodhe has expired on
04.06.2017. The learned counsel then submits that the first
information report revolves around, firstly, the ambiguous
allegations against applicant no.1 and secondly, general allegations
3 APL546.16.odt
against other applicants. It is the submissions of the learned counsel
that the statements in the first information report itself are so vague
that it fail to constitute any offence, much less, an offence under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly attracted against the
applicants. The learned counsel then submitted that on the contrary,
the first information report reflects that deceased Chetna was
disturbed and was under a depressed psychological condition. It is
the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that with
such vague allegations constituting no offence against applicant
nos.2 to 5, continuation of the proceedings would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law. Thus, it is the submission of the learned
counsel that this Court, by exercising powers under section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, may prevent the abuse of process of
law by quashing the first information report against applicant nos.2
to 5.
4] Per contra, an attempt was made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State to submit that there is
sufficient material against these applicants. The learned APP, in
support of his submissions invited our attention to the statements of
4 APL546.16.odt
the witnesses recorded by the investigating agency. Perusal of the
material collected by the agency, more particularly, the statements of
the witnesses on which reliance was placed by the learned APP,
clearly show that there is absolute no material against applicant
nos.2 to 5, except the vague allegations. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 also opposed the application.
5] Perusal of the statement of non-applicant no.2 i.e. father
of deceased Chetna shows that with the intervention and suggestions
of the relatives, the marriage of applicant no.1 Sagar and deceased
Chetna was fixed in January, 2016 and the scheduled date of
marriage was 02.5.2016. He further stated that on 04.3.2016 he had
been to village Shirpur and handed over an amount of Rs.3,25,000/-
to applicant no.1 Sagar in presence of his relatives Vipin Bodhe,
Devanand Bodhe and Kusumbai Bodhe. It is material to note that in
the very statement witness Bandu stated that there is absolutely no
material in respect of this transaction i.e. in his words, there is no
proof for this transaction. It is further stated by Bandu Askar that on
22.4.2016, he along with his brother-in-law Umesh had been to
Shirpur for extending the marriage invitation card and at that time
5 APL546.16.odt
demand of money was made. Bandu was not in a position to accept
the demand and as such he only extended the invitation card and
returned back. On 26.4.2016, a notice was received in the name of
daughter Chetna expressing inability to perform the marriage with
Chetna on the ground that Chetna is not keeping good health. The
notice was replied on 28.4.2016 and on 29.4.2016 the report was
lodged against these applicants. On 02.5.2016, though, the bride
and her relatives proceeded for the marriage ceremony, the
bridegroom did not turn up and an information was forwarded to the
police station. On 03.05.2016, there was a settlement between these
two families and Bandu informed the police station not to act on his
report for a period of two days. He further stated in his statement
that there was a settlement between the families and accordingly
Bandu received Rs.3,75,000/- from Sagar. It is further stated that on
13.5.2016, Chetna received a mobile call from applicant no.1 Sagar
and he informed Chetna that her family was responsible for break in
the matrimonial tie. It is further stated that on 17.5.2016, applicant
no.1 Sagar approached Bandu with his friend and was insisting for
return of the amount. Sagar also gave threat of life, but due to
intervention of one Madhukar and Natthuji, Bandu did not lodge any
6 APL546.16.odt
report to the police. On 20.5.2016, Bandu received an information
of Chetna committing suicide. It stated in the statement of Bandu
that after receiving notice, Chetna was in depressed mood and
ultimately committed suicide. The statement is closed with a general
allegation that for the death of Chetna, applicant no.1 Sagar, his
brother Prashant, sister-in-law Deepali, mother Kusumbai and cousin
brother Vipin are responsible.
6] Though, learned APP made an attempt to place heavy
reliance on the statement of non-applicant no.2 Bandu, as stated
above, except some allegations against Sagar, the statement against
the other applicants is a general statement, making out absolutely no
case against them. Similar is the state of affair in respect of other
statements of the witnesses namely Yashodhara Askar and Digambar
Zile. The learned APP again made an attempt to place reliance on
the statement of one Neeta Rajgadkar, who happens to be the friend
of Chetna. Even in the statement of Neeta, it is reflected that Chetna
was under depression as, on the scheduled date of marriage, Sagar
did not turn up. The statement Neeta also refers to a general
allegation against applicant nos.2 to 5. Then, the other statements
refer to an information provided to these persons through Bandu.
7 APL546.16.odt
7] Though, there cannot be any dispute on the proposition
of law that while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the
Court should be slow, considering the material referred to above
which is in the form of general allegations, is wholly inadequate to
constitute offence against the applicants. There is considerable merit
in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that with
such material continuation of the proceedings against these
applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
8] Considering all these aspects, the criminal application is
partly allowed.
The First Information Report bearing No. 389/2016,
dated 20.5.2016 registered at Police Station, Wani, Distt. Yavatmal
against applicant nos.2 to 5, is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale
