Shantaram S/O. Bapusaheb Mandlik ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8759 Bom

                                1            Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.563 OF 2017

     1.      Shantaram Bapusaheb Mandlik,
             Age 27 years, Occu: Private Service,
             R/o Bargaon Nandur (Mandilik Wasti)
             Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar,

     2.      Bapusaheb Matarba Mandlik,
             Age 58 years, Occu: Agri.,
             R/o As per above. 

     3.      Sau. Gayabai Bapusaheb Mandlik,
             Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
             R/o As per above.

     4.      Sau. Sheetal Sunil Dhawan,
             Age 31 years, Occu: Household,
             R/o Dhawan Wasti, Pipeline Road Bhistgaon,
             Sawadi, Tq. Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

     5.      Sau. Yogita Sharad Jarhad,
             Age 22 years, Occu: Household,
             R/o at present Opposite Surya Lawns,
                                                         s
             Beed By Pass Road, Aurangabad. ...  Petitioner  

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through Secretary,
             Home Department, 
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

     2.      Police Inspector, 
             Police Station, Rahuri,
             Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar,




::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2017 01:26:23 :::
                                            2                Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

     3.       Sau. Prajakta Shantaram Mandlik,
              Age 31 years, Occu: Household,
              R/o at present C/o Ashabai Ramdas Dhale,
              Sonai, Tq. Newasa,
              Dist. Ahmednagar.              ...  Respondents

                                ...
     Adv. Shubhangi D. More, Advocate for Petitioners
     Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State
     Mr. V.M.Maney, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                ...

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

                               DATE    :  16th November, 2017



      ORAL JUDGMENT :  (Per S.S.Shinde J.)
                                           :- 

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard

finally.

2. This petition is filed with following prayer Clause

'B' :-

"B - By issuing any appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, this Hon'ble High Court may please be quash and set aside the vide Cr.No.I 47/2017 registered at Rahuri Police Station, dated 09.02.2017 for the offences punishable under Section

- 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860."

3 Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that even if the allegations in the First

Information Report are taken at its face value and read

in its entirety, alleged offences have not been disclosed.

There are vague and general allegations without

mentioning any specific incident or overtact and date

and therefore, keeping in view the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and

another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010)

7 SCC 667] and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC

741], FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the

State relying upon the investigation papers submits that

upon reading the allegations in the FIR in entirety,

alleged offences have been disclosed as against all the

petitioners. Therefore, petition may be rejected.

5. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.2 submits that, the allegations in the FIR prima-facie

4 Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

constitutes the alleged offences. The allegations in the

FIR will have to be read as it is and appreciation of said

allegations even in summary manner is not permissible

when there is a prayer for quashing the FIR. It is

submitted that there was ill-treatment, harassment and

demand of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) by

the petitioners and therefore, the allegations in the FIR

needs further investigation.

6. We have given careful consideration to the

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned APP appearing for the State and

learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. We

have perused pleadings in the petition, grounds taken

therein, annexures thereto and in particular allegations

in the FIR. So far petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are concerned,

they are residing in the matrimonial house and there

are allegations of abusing, assaulting and threatening to

kill Respondent No.2, against them. Therefore, when

the investigation is in progress, we are not inclined to

entertain this petition to the extent of petitioner Nos.1 to

5 Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

3. Hence, their petition stands rejected.

7. So far Petitioner No.4 is concerned, she is residing

at Ahmednagar and married sister of Petitioner No.1

Shantaram. Petitioner No.5 is residing at Aurangabad

and also married sister of Petitioner No.1 Shantaram.

So far their role is concerned, there is casual reference

in the FIR that along with Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 they

have also demanded Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac

only). There is no any specific incident or specific

allegations against Petitioner Nos.4 and 5. The fact that

Petitioner No.4 is residing at Ahmednagar and Petitioner

No.5 is residing at Aurangabad is not in dispute.

8. In that view of the matter, keeping in view the

exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the

case of Preeti Gupta and another (supra) and Geeta

Mehrotra (supra), we are inclined to allow the petition of

Petitioner Nos.4 and 5. The Supreme Court in the case

of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC 741], in the facts

6 Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

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 of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V.Rao

Vs. L.H.V. Prasad [(2000) 3 SCC 693] wherein para 12

it is observed thus :

"12. There has been an outburst of 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."

7 Cri.W.P.563-17. Jud.odt

9. Accordingly, FIR No.I-47 of 2017 registered with

Rahuri Police Station, for the offences under Sections

498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code stands quashed and set aside qua Petitioner No.4 -

Sheetal Sunil Dhawan and No.5 - Yogita Sharad Jarhad.

10. In the result, petition is partly allowed, and

stands disposed of accordingly.

11. The observations made while rejecting the petition

of Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are prima-facie in nature and

confined to the adjudication of present petition only.

The rejection of this petition shall not be construed as

an impediment to the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 to avail of an

appropriate remedy, in the event of filing charge-sheet

by the Investigating Officer.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) ...

vmk/-