Mr. Rangrao S/O Shyamrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8493 Bom

                                      1                                       APL673.16.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 673 OF 2016


 APPLICANTS            : 1]  Rangrao S/o Shyamrao Chaudhary,
                             Age 65 years, Occupation : Private.

                          2] Sau. Lata W/o Rangrao Chaudhary,
                             Age60 years,  Occupation : Household.

                                All R/o Plot No.54, Radhakrishna Society,
                                Pardi, Nagpur.

                                              VERSUS

 RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Maharashtra,
                 through Police Station Officer,
                 Police Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia.

                          2] Sau. Deepali W/o Sagar Chaudhary,
                             Age Major, R/o C/o Arun Thakare,
                             Suryatola Road, Near Water Tank,
                             Gondia

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Mr. Ritesh Patil, Advocate h/f Mr. R.R.Vyas, Advocate for 
            the applicants.
            Mr. T. A. Mirza, A. P. P. for non-applicant no.1/State.
            None for the non-applicant no.2
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE and
                               ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

                      DATE     : NOVEMBER 07, 2017.



 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Prasanna B. Varale, J).





                                  2                                APL673.16.odt


 1]               Heard Shri Ritesh Patil, learned counsel holding for Shri

R.R. Vyas, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri T.A. Mirza,

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no.1 State

2] ADMIT.

3] The applicants are before this Court seeking quashment

of the First Information Report No. 122/2015, dated 23.10.2015,

lodged at Police Station, Ram Nagar, Gondia for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. The applicants have also prayed for quashing the

final report/Charge-sheet No. 39/2016.

4] Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the applicants

vehemently submitted that the applicants are the father-in-law and

mother-in-law, respectively, of the non-applicant no.2/complainant

and are in their advanced age. He further submitted that the report

even on its face value discloses no offence against these applicants.

5] The learned counsel, by inviting our attention to the

copy of report placed on record, submitted that the marriage

3 APL673.16.odt

between non-applicant no.2/complainant and the son of the

applicants, namely Sagar Chaudhary was solemnized on 15.6.2012 at

Nagpur. For the initial period of the matrimonial life, there was no

discord between the couple, but after six months, when non-

applicant no.2 became pregnant, the applicants and husband Sagar

told her that they are not in a position to share the responsibility of a

child and they demanded amount of Rs.One lakh to non-applicant

no.2 and told her that if she is not in a position to bring the amount,

she should subject herself to abortion.

6] The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

the report states about the ill acts of physical violence on account of

demand of money against the husband. The only allegation against

the applicants is of instigating the husband, which is too vague and

general allegation. The learned counsel then submitted that the

report is silent in respect of the period of the alleged instigation and

it only reiterates the instigation on 16.9.2015 and a statement that

the husband of complainant gave fist blows. The report was lodged

at Police Station, Kalamna, Nagpur as the husband had driven the

wife/complainant from matrimonial home on 01.7.2015. She took

4 APL673.16.odt

shelter at her aunts place. The report refers to an earlier incident of

leaving the matrimonial house on 01.7.2015 and the complainant

taking shelter at her parental home for a period of one month. The

learned counsel submitted that the report fails to initiate any action

against these applicants, least the proceedings initiated for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7] The learned counsel then submitted that on receiving

the report, the investigating agency was set in motion and on

completion of usual formalities, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

8] The learned counsel then invited our attention to the

statements recorded by the investigating agency during the course of

investigation. He invited our attention to the statement of father,

brother, sister and brother-in-law of the complainant. It was

submitted by the learned counsel that even these statements are the

reiteration of the statements in the report lodged by the complainant

and they are vague and general statements against these applicants.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that with such a

5 APL673.16.odt

material on record, there is hardly any scope that the prosecution can

establish any case against these applicants in the trial and the only

result of the trial would be an acquittal of these applicants. The

learned counsel thus submitted that the applicants, who are in their

advanced age and making them to face the prosecution on an

unsustainable material, is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for exercising the powers of

this court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash and set aside

the first information report and the charge-sheet against these

applicants.

9] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-

applicant no.1/State opposes the application.

10] On going through the material in the form of charge-

sheet as well as the report, we find considerable merit in the

submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants. The learned

counsel was justified in submitting that the report and the other

material is as vague as it could be and the only allegation against

these applicants is of instigation. Except the vague allegation, there

6 APL673.16.odt

is nothing in the material on record to show that these applicants

have actually participated in any act of ill-treatment to the

complainant. The learned counsel was thus justified in submitting

that continuation of criminal prosecution against these applicants is

nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel has

made out a case for exercising the powers of this Court under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C..

11] In the result, the criminal application is allowed in terms

of prayer clause (ii) and disposed of accordingly.

                          JUDGE                          JUDGE

 Diwale