Shrikrushan S/O. Kondiba Ingole ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8755 Bom

                                               2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
                                     1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2136 OF 2017 


          1.       Shrikrushan s/o.Kondiba Ingole, 
                   Age: 32 Years, Occ. Labour.  

          2.       Kondiba s/o. Tolaram Ingole, 
                   Age: Major, Occ. Labour.  

          3.       Shila w/o. Kondiba Ingole, 
                   Age: Major, Occ. Household.  

          4.       Shobha Bandu Barkul, 
                   Age: Major, Occ. Household.  

                   Applicant Nos.1 to 4 
                   R/o. Ashok Nagar, Rural Beed, 
                   Tq. & Dist. Beed.  

          5.       Sunanda Sudhakar Warekar,  
                   Age: Major, Occ. Household, 
                   R/o.Mhada Shriniwas Mill 
                   Lower Parel, Mumbai 

          6.       Sudhakar Raghu Warekar,  
                   Age: Major, Occ. Service,  
                   R/o. as above.                APPLICANTS 

                           VERSUS

          1.       The State of Maharashtra
                   Through Rural Police Station, 
                   Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.  

          2.       Rekha w/o.Shrikrushan Ingole, 
                   Age: Major, Occ. Household, 
                   R/o. Kuttewadi, Beed, 
                   Tq. & Dist. Beed.            RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:08 :::
                                                         2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt
                                          2


                                ...
          Mr.Nanabhau   R.Thorat,   Advocate   for   the 
          applicants
          Mr.Shashibhushan   P.Deshmukh,   APP   for   the 
          Respondent / State
          Mr.R.N.Jain,   Advocate   holding   for 
          Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondent no.2. 
                                ...

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

Reserved on : 14.11.2017 Pronounced on : 16.11.2017

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 praying

therein to quash and set aside the First

Information Report bearing Crime No.04/2017

dated 07.01.2017, registered at Rural Police

Station, Beed for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of

the IPC.

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

4] The learned counsel appearing for

the applicants invites our attention to the

allegations in the First Information Report

[for short 'FIR'] and submits that even if

the allegations in the FIR are taken at its

face value and read in its entirety, the

alleged offences have not been disclosed. He

further submits that the allegations in

respect of demand of Rs.40,000/- for the

purpose of taking bore well in the field, are

unacceptable since the applicants are

landless person and the question of demanding

amount for the purpose of taking bore well in

the field, are totally false. It is submitted

that the marriage between respondent no.2 and

applicant no.1 was solemnized on 24th March,

2006. From the said wedlock, applicant no.1

and respondent no.2 are blessed with two

children, namely, Meghraj and Pruthviraj, who

are aged about 8 years and 6 years

respectively. It is submitted that as alleged

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

in the FIR respondent no.2 left the

matrimonial home in the year 2014, and the

FIR has been lodged belatedly on 7th January,

2017. It is submitted that applicant nos.5

and 6 are residing at Mumbai since the year

2007. Applicant no.6 is the employee in

Shikre Construction Tech Pvt. Ltd. Company.

It is submitted that applicant no.1 has

already initiated proceedings praying therein

for restitution of conjugal rights and to

counter blast the said proceedings, the FIR

with false allegations has been lodged by

respondent no.2. It is submitted that the

applicants tried to settle the matter before

the Women Grievance Cell at Beed and

applicant no.1 is ready to cohabit with

respondent no.2, however, respondent no.2 did

not allow to materialize such settlement.

5] On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent-State and

learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

submit that the allegations in the FIR

clearly discloses the alleged offences.

There was ill-treatment and harassment at the

hands of the applicants, and therefore, the

allegations in the FIR need further

investigation. It is submitted that applicant

nos.5 and 6 are residing at the same village

where the matrimonial house is situate. The

learned APP invites our attention to the

investigation papers and submits that the

application may be rejected.

6] We have given careful consideration

to the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the applicants, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent-State and the

learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.2. With their able assistance, we have

perused the averments in the application,

annexures thereto, investigation papers and

in particular the allegations in the FIR. So

far as applicant no.1 Shrikrushan Kondiba

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

Ingole i.e. husband of respondent no.2 is

concerned, it is alleged against him that in

the year 2014 he gave fist and kick blows,

abused respondent no.2, assaulted her and she

was driven out from the matrimonial house,

and thereafter, respondent no.2 started

residing with her two children at her

parental house. Since the said allegations

prima facie discloses the alleged offences,

we are not inclined to quash the FIR qua

applicant no.1, hence his application stands

rejected.

7] Upon careful perusal of the contents

of the FIR, it appears that, respondent no.2

was driven out from the matrimonial house by

her husband in the month of January, 2014 and

since then she started residing in her

parent's house. However, the FIR has been

lodged on 7th January, 2017. So far as

applicant nos.2 to 6 are concerned, there are

general allegations without attributing overt

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

act qua each of the applicants i.e. applicant

nos.2 to 6. There are allegations of demand

of Rs.40,000/-. However, no any specific

date, time or incident has been alleged as

against applicant nos.2 to 6. We have also

carefully perused the investigation papers,

and we do not find any material showing

specific incident or specific allegations in

relation to some specific incident as against

applicant nos.2 to 6. It further appears

that, the applicants also made attempt to

settle the matter with respondent no.2 and to

that effect some exercise was made before the

Women Grievance Cell. Therefore, upon perusal

of the allegations in the FIR there are

casual references to applicant nos.2 to 6.

As already observed, the allegations are

vague and the FIR has been lodged belatedly

on 7th January, 2017, though the allegations

as stated in the FIR itself relate back to

the year 2007 to 2014.

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

8] We find considerable force in the

argument of the learned counsel appearing for

the applicants. The learned counsel appearing

for the applicants placed reliance upon the

case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs.State of

Jharkhand and another1.

9] The Supreme Court in the case of

Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another2 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 to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad3 wherein in para 12

it is observed thus:

"12. There has been an outburst of 1 [2010] 7 SCC 667 2 (2012) 10 SCC 741 3 (2000) 3 SCC 693

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

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 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."

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

10] The Supreme Court in the case of

State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal4 held that,

in following categories the 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 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.

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

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 prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

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 nos.2 to 6 is

covered under category nos.1 and 5 of the

afore-mentioned categories.

12] In the light of above, the First

Information Report bearing Crime No.04/2017

registered at Rural Police Station, Beed for

the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the IPC stands

quashed and set aside to the extent of

2136.2017 Cri.Appln.odt

applicant nos.2 to 6 only. The application to

the extent of applicant no.1 stands rejected.

13] The application is partly allowed.

Rule is made absolute to above extent.

                


             [MANGESH S.PATIL]           [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                      JUDGE  
          DDC