Bombay High Court
Pravin Jaideo Ambade And Another vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 15 November, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 apl218.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.218 OF 2017
1.Pravin Jaideo Ambade,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Nil.
2.Kamal wd/o. Jaideo Ambade,
Aged about 62 years, Occ.
Retired.
R/o. Singhaniya Colony,
Pandharkawada, Tq.Kelapur,
District Yavatmal. .......... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station
Office, Police Station,
Vadgaon Road, District
Yavatmal.
2. Harsha w/o. Pravin Ambade,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.
Service, r/o. c/o.Rameshrao
Bhagat, Gurumauli Society,
Umersara, Yavatmal. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:46:34 :::
2 apl218.17.odt
____________________________________________________________
Mr.S.D.Borkute, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr.V.P.Gangane, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 15.11.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally
by the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. By this Criminal Application, the applicants have prayed
to quash and set aside the First Information Report vide Crime
No.0122 of 2017, dt.4.2.2017 for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered by Police
Station, Vadgaon Road, Yavatmal.
3. It is submitted that respondent no.2 is wife of applicant
no.1. Their marriage was solemnized on 16.11.2014. Applicant no.2
is old mother of applicant no.1.
3 apl218.17.odt
4. It is submitted that respondent no.2/complainant was
since beginning an ambitious lady and she wanted to live at
Yavatmal and lead a lavish life, which applicant no.1 could not
afford. There used to be quarrels between applicant no.1 and his
wife/respondent no.2 on the issue of shifting to Yavatmal.
5. It is submitted that respondent no.2 was pregnant.
When she was carrying pregnancy of seven months, her father and
mother took her to Yavatmal for delivery. Since then, she never
returned from her parents' house. On 17.9.2015, respondent no.2
gave birth to son Sarvadhnya at Getwell hospital at Nagpur.
6 It is submitted that respondent no.2 never returned to her
matrimonial house. Applicant no.1 tried to bring her, but she
refused. She was insisting to stay at Yavatmal. Applicant no.1 was
not ready to reside at Yavatmal with his wife/respondent no.2. It is
submitted that applicant no.1 filed proceedings for restitution of
conjugal rights on 11.2.2016 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Pandharkawada/Kelapur. On 19.7.2016, respondent no.2 jointly
filed a pursis before the Court and submitted that there is an
4 apl218.17.odt
amicable settlement and she wanted to reside with her
husband/applicant no.1. Even thereafter, respondent no.2 never
joined the company of applicant no.1. On the other hand, she
lodged a false report against the applicants. Therefore, it is prayed to
quash and set aside the crime registered against the applicants.
7. Heard learned Counsel Mr.S.D.Borkute for the
applicants. He has pointed out to us the Judgment of this Court, to
which one of us (M.G.Giratkar, J) was a party (Criminal Application
(APL) No.219 of 2017, dt.27.9.2017). The F.I.R. lodged by
respondent no.2 therein was quashed and set aside in respect of
brother and sister of applicant no.1 vide Judgment dt.27.9.2017.
8. In the present application, the learned Counsel for the
applicants has not pressed the application in respect of applicant
no.1 and has prayed to pass appropriate order in respect of applicant
no.2.
8. Perused the report lodged by respondent no.2. From the
report, it appears that she appeared before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Kelapur/Pandharkawada. The matter was amicably settled between
5 apl218.17.odt
applicant no.1 and respondent no.2. She started residing with her
husband at Kelapur/Pandharkawada. Thereafter, applicant no.1
ousted her and beat her. Hence, she called her parents and went to
Yavatmal. She has stated in her report that applicant no.1 came to
Yavatmal on 4.2.2017. Her parents had gone for marriage.
Applicant no.1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. When she refused, he
caught hold her hair and fell her down. Her uncle rescued her from
applicant no.1.
9. From the perusal of entire report, it could be seen that
there is no specific allegation against applicant no.2. As per the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S
tate of Haryana
.vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, if the report
prima facie do not make out any allegations, then the First
Information Report can be quashed and set aside. From the perusal
of entire report in the present application, no specific allegation of
beating etc. is alleged against applicant no.2. There is specific
allegation against applicant no.1 only. Applicant no.1 has not pressed
this application. Hence, we pass the following order.
6 apl218.17.odt
// ORDER //
The prayer in respect of applicant no.1 is
hereby rejected, as 'not pressed'.
The application is allowed in respect of
applicant no.2 in terms of prayer clause (i) of the
application. We quash and set aside the First
Information Report bearing Crime No.0122 of 2017,
dt.4.2.2017 against applicant no.2 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code registered by Police Station, Vadgaon Road,
Yavatmal.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
7 apl218.17.odt
