Bombay High Court
Hanumant S/O. Jagannath Bhosle vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
562.17WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 562 OF 2017
Hanumant S/o Jagganath Bhosle
Age : 40 years, Occ : Kirtankar,
R/o At Post. Alandi, Goaplpura,
Tq. Khed, Dist. Pune.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Niranjana W/o Hanumant Bhosle
Age : 39 years, Occ : Kirtankar,
R/o C/o Bhaskar Changdev Shinde,
At Post. Alandi Devachi,
Bhagyashri Dharmashala,
Near Old Bridge, Tq. Khed,
Dist. Pune.
RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Sharad S. Ambore, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mrs.P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent No.1 -
State.
Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.2.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.
DATE : 09.10.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
Rule. Rule made returnable
562.17WP.odt
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with the
following prayer :-
"B) Quash and set aside the FIR No.0115
of 2016 dated 09.06.2016, registered
with Kalamb Police Station against the
petitioner to the extent of offence
punishable under Sections 323, 498-A,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and
for that purpose issue necessary orders;
3. The background facts for filing the
present Petition, as disclosed in the memo of
Petition, in brief are as under:
The petitioner has been arrayed as
accused in FIR No.0115/2011 by Respondent
No.2, with Kalamb Police Station on 9th June,
2016, for the offences punishable under
562.17WP.odt
sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner
that, Respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife
of the petitioner, and their marriage was
solemnized on 20th May, 2011 according to
Hindu rituals. After marriage, respondent
no.2 cohabited with petitioner till 3rd
September, 2013. On 3rd September, 2013,
Respondent No.2, left the house of the
petitioner and started residing with another
person namely Bhaskar Shinde.
4. It is the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner got mentally disturbed
and consumed poison on 6th September, 2013
and thereafter was admitted in the Pimpri-
Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Hospital,
wherein he was treated till 9th September,
2013. It is the case of the petitioner that,
thereafter on 21st April, 2014 and 24th May,
2014, the petitioner sent notices through
562.17WP.odt
advocate to Respondent No.2, and called upon
Respondent no.2 to resume cohabitation with
him. But Respondent no.2 neither replied the
said notices nor came for cohabitation. On
13th June, 2014 and 18th July, 2014, the
petitioner made applications to the Sub-
Inspector, Pune District Rural Police Station
making grievance that, his wife had left the
matrimonial house, and started residing with
another man i.e. Bhaskar Shinde.
5. It is further the case of the
petitioner that, on 24th August, 2015, he
filed Divorce Petition (No) 207 of 2015, in
the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Rajgurunagar under Section 13(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On 10th
November, 2016, the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Khed-Rajgurunagar partly allowed
the application and directed him to pay
Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance to
562.17WP.odt
Respondent No.2 and Rs. 3000/- towards
litigation charges.
It is the case of the petitioner
that, on 29th February, 2016 respondent no.2
filed Miscellaneous Application no. 10 of
2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Kalamb under sections 3, 12, 17, 18,
19, 20, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act.
Respondent No.2 after service of
summons of divorce petition filed by the
petitioner, belatedly after five years of
marriage, on 9th June, 2016 she lodged the
present F.I.R. Hence this Petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that, even if the
allegations in the first information report
are taken at its face value and read in its
562.17WP.odt
entirety, the alleged offences have not been
disclosed. In fact the petitioner is ready to
settle the dispute with Respondent No.2,
however, Respondent No.2 is not agreeable for
settlement. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner invites our attention to the
grounds taken in the Petition, annexures
thereto, and submits that, the Petition
deserves to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for the respondent - State relying
upon the contents of the first information
report and also the investigation papers,
submits that, there are serious allegations
of illtreatment and harassment and also there
was demand of Rs.7 Lakhs from the father of
the Respondent No.2 by the accused. The
allegations in the first information report
will have to be taken as it is and can only
be tested during the trial.
562.17WP.odt
8. Learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2, relying upon the averments
in the affidavit in reply and also
allegations in the first information report,
submits that, there was continuous
illtreatment and harassment at the hands of
the petitioner to Respondent No.2. As a
result of which, she was driven out of the
matrimonial house. There was demand of Rs. 7
Lakhs by the petitioner to the father of
Respondent No.2. The father of Respondent
No.2 collected amount from the relatives and
paid Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner so as to
purchase the 1.5 guntha land at Alandi.
However, the petitioner continued to illtreat
respondent no.2. Therefore, he submits that,
the Petition may be rejected.
9. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions advanced by the learned
562.17WP.odt
counsel appearing for the parties. With their
able assistance, we have carefully perused
the grounds taken in the petition, annexures
thereto and reply filed by Respondent No.2 so
also the investigation papers. Upon careful
perusal of the allegations in the first
information report, there are serious
allegations in the first information report
against the accused that he used to suspect
the character/chastity of Respondent No.2,
and on that count used to illtreat and harass
her. There are specific allegations that, to
purchase the land at Alandi, the petitioner
demanded Rs. 7 Lakhs from the father of
Respondent No.2, and the father of Respondent
No.2 collected the amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs from
the relatives, and said amount was given to
the petitioner. Since there was demand of Rs.
7 Lakhs and the father of Respondent No.2
fulfilled demand of only Rs. 5 Lakhs, for
remaining amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs, the
562.17WP.odt
petitioner used to illtreat and harass
Respondent No.2. As a result of continuous
illtreatment and harassment, on 3rd
September, 2013, Respondent No.2 was driven
out from the matrimonial house by the
petitioner.
10. Upon careful perusal of the contents
of the first information report and also
other documents placed on record, an
ingredients of the alleged offences have been
disclosed and consequently the alleged
offences needs further investigation.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of
Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s Monica and
others1 in para 11 of the judgment has held
that the facts, as alleged, in the complaint
will have to be proved which can be done only
in the course of a regular trial. The
1 (2014) 3 SCC 383
562.17WP.odt
appreciation, in a summary manner, of the
averments made in a complaint petition or
F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage
of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated
will have to be accepted as they appear on
the very face of it.
12. The Supreme Court in another
judgment in the case of Taramani Prakash V/s
State of M.P. and others2 has also taken a
view that, the question whether the
informant/complainant has infact been
harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter
of trial. In that view of the matter, we are
not inclined to entertain this Petition for
quashing of First Information Report. Hence
the Petition stands rejected.
The observations made hereinabove
are, prima facie, in nature and the rejection
2 2015 AIR (SC) (Supp) 704
562.17WP.odt
of this Petition shall not be construed as an
impediment to the petitioner to avail of an
appropriate remedy as available in law, in
the event of filing charge-sheet by the
Investigating Officer.
[MANGESH S. PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
SGA
