Jagdeep S/O. Datta Dhootraj And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8380 Bom

                                    (1)                           cri.appln 1463.17

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1463 OF 2017

1.    Jagdeep S/o Datta Dhootraj,
      Age: 25 years, Occ. Labour,
      R/o. Plot No.7, Sr.No. 12, Wadi Road,
      Ekata Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

2.    Ranjanabai W/o Datta Dhootraj,
      Age: 50 years, Occ. Household,

3.    Datta S/o Mohanrao Dhootraj,
      Age: 60 years, Occ. Retired from Service,

      Both R/o. Jagarat Hanuman Nagar,
      Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

4.    Babi @ Sangita W/o Devidas Chawane,
      Age: 35 years, Occ. Housewife,
      R/o. Jagarat Hanuman Nagar, Nanded,
      Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

5.    Nikita w/o Nikhil Sarpate,
      Age: 25 yeas, Occ. Household

6.    Nikhil s/o Datta Sarpate,
      Age: 30 years, Occ. Private Service,

      Both R/o. Flat No.13 SVS Bhagshri Height,
      Sangam Nagar, Near National School,
      Old Sangvi Pune-27, Tq. & Dist. Pune.           ...      Applicants

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Police Station Bhagyanagar,
      Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.




     ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2017 01:59:52 :::
                                                (2)                               cri.appln 1463.17

2.    Diksha w/o Jagdeep Dhootraj,
      Age: 22 years, Occ. Housewife,
      R/o. c/o Deepak Omkar, Shivajinagar,
      Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.                              ...      Respondents

                                    -----
Mr. R.M. Jade h/f. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Anand R. Magar h/f. G.P. Shinde, Advocate for respondent no.2.
                                    -----

                                         CORAM :       S.S. SHINDE &
                                                       MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 03.11.2017 ...

JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

both the sides the matter is heard finally.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for

quashing F.I.R. No. 3 of 2017 registered on 04.01.2017 with

Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under

Section 417, 465, 498-A, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The F.I.R. has been lodged at the instance of the respondent no.2. The

applicant no.1 is her husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are her parents in

law, applicant no.4 is the sister of her mother in law i.e. the applicant

no.2, applicant no.5 is the sister of applicant no.1 and applicant no. 6 is

(3) cri.appln 1463.17

her husband.

3. We have perused the application and the police papers. We

have heard the learned Advocate for both the sides.

4. The respondent no.2 lodged the complaint inter alia alleging

that since after her marriage with the applicant no.1 on 22.05.2016 the

applicants subjected her to cruelty by demanding money for purchasing a

car and on that count started physically and mentally ill-treating her.

Even the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 either ill-treated her or instigated rest

of the applicants in subjecting her to ill-treatment. On 04.01.2017, even

the applicants assaulted her mother and ultimately she lodged the

complaint on the same day.

5. At the outset, it is necessary to note that on 30.03.2017 the

application was not pressed on behalf of the applicant nos. 1 to 3 by their

learned Advocate and accordingly it was rejected. Thus, the application

as of now has to be considered only qua the applicant nos. 4 to 6.

6. According to the learned Advocate for the applicants, the

applicant nos. 5 and 6 have been residing in Pune and even a copy of the

leave and license agreement is produced on the record dated 01.06.2016

showing that they have taken the premises for residence at Old Sangvi,

(4) cri.appln 1463.17

Pune for a period of eleven months i.e. from 01.07.2016 to 01.06.2017.

Even if they have been named in the F.I.R., the allegations against them

are vague and does not make out necessary ingredients for constituting

the offence. The learned Advocate also submitted that the applicant no.4

is in fact sister of the mother in law and has no concern with the incident.

The allegations against her are also absurd and inherently improbable.

All the relatives have been roped in mala fide with a view to harass them.

7. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for the

respondent no.2 opposed the application. They stated that the

ingredients of the offence are only to be prima facie made out from the

F.I.R. and it is not necessary that the F.I.R. should be elaborate

explaining all details of all the incidents. The respondent no.2 and the

prosecution needs to be extended an opportunity to establish the

allegations and which can take place only during trial and thus they

prayed to reject the application even in respect of applicant nos. 4 to 6.

8. Suffice for the purpose to refer to the oft quoted decision

cited by the learned Advocate for the applicants in the case of State of

Haryana V/s Bhajanlal; AIR 1992 S.C. 604 and particularly the

instances mentioned there in paragraph 108, which reads thus:

                                    (5)                               cri.appln 1463.17

      "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 of 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 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

(6) cri.appln 1463.17

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."

It is apparent that the applicants are trying to bring their case

under some of these categories and particularly category nos. 1, 5 and 7.

It is apparent that even going by the contents of the F.I.R., the marriage

between the applicant no. 1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on

22.05.2016 and immediately after a couple of months alleged ill-

treatment started. Taking into account, the fact that the F.I.R. has been

lodged on 04.01.2017, it is apparent that the respondent no.2 must have

co-habited at the in laws place barely for six to seven months and even

out of that she was treated well for first two months. However, simply

because she has co-habited at the in laws place for few months only that

does not necessarily belie all the allegations in the F.I.R. and one cannot

say that the contents of the F.I.R. are inherently improbable. There is

(7) cri.appln 1463.17

also no material to show that she has made these allegations mala fide

and is trying to misuse the process of law. We are satisfied that the

contents of the F.I.R. prima facie make out the ingredients for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504 and 506. However, it

appears that some other offences like cheating punishable under Section

417 and forgery punishable under Section 465 have also been added,

when ex facie not even a remote, isolated or cursory reference to any of

the ingredients for these offences can be found in the F.I.R. The learned

A.P.P. has not been able to substantiate as to how these offences can be

made out.

9. Be that as it may, barring Section 417 and 465 of the I.P.C.,

the ingredients for constituting the rest of the offences can easily be

made out from the contents of the F.I.R. The case of the applicant nos. 4

to 6 does not fit in any of the categories laid down in the case of

Bhajanlal (supra).

10. Under these circumstances, the application does not have any

merit and is liable to be rejected.

11.             However,        it   is   necessary   to   make       it   clear     that      the

observations        made herein-above are prima facie and have been made





                                         (8)                              cri.appln 1463.17

for just decision of this matter only.

12. The application is rejected. The rule is discharged.

      [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                          [S.S. SHINDE, J.]




mub