Sudhir Rangrao Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 7986 Bom

                                     (1)                     943 cri appln 3376.17

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3376 OF 2017


1.    Sudhir Rangrao Patil
      Age : 48 years, Occ. Service,
      R/o. Subhash Colony, Shirpur,
      Taluka Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.

2.    Madhavi Sudhir Patil
      Age : 40 years, Occ. Household,
      R/o. Subhash Colony, Shirpur,
      Taluka Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.                      ..        Applicants

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Shirpur City Police Station,
      Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur,
      Dist. Dhule.

2.    Bhagyashree Vishal Patil
      Age : 24 years, Occ. Household,
      R/o C/o. Sanjay Vasantrao Suryawanshi,
      29-A, Kiran Housing Society, Shirpur,
      District Dhule.                                   ..        Respondents

                                    ------

Mr. Rane Girish S., Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. Raj S. Devdhe h/f. S.P. Brahme for R/2.
Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.

                                    ------




     ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:06:29 :::
                                         (2)                     943 cri appln 3376.17

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

                                    DATE      : 10.10.2017


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

.               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This application takes exception to the F.I.R. bearing Crime

No. 182 of 2017 dated 03.06.2017 for the offence punishable under

sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Shirpur City Police

Station, Shirpur.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invites our

attention to the allegations in the F.I.R. and submits that, so far as

present applicants are concerned, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. as

against them are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the

alleged offences have not been disclosed against them. Therefore, he

submits that the application deserves to be allowed.

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel

appearing for respondent no.2 relying upon the contents of the F.I.R. and

averments in the affidavit in reply jointly submit that, if the contents are

(3) 943 cri appln 3376.17

carefully perused the alleged offence under Section 498 of the I.P.C. is

disclosed, therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. may not be

favourably considered.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

at length. We have also carefully perused the allegations in the F.I.R. as

against the present applicants.

6. The relevant passages wherein the allegations in the F.I.R. as

against the applicants are mentioned are as under:

"ek> s eke lklj s o lklq g s ek> s vkbZ ofMyk ap s ?kjh ; so q u f'kohxkG djhr vl s o ek> s cn~ n y dq j kirh dk<q u Hkk aM .k r aV k djhr vl s -

ek> s irh eyk u sg eh nq j B so r vl s o ek> s' kh l ac a/ k B so .k s n s[ khy VkGr vl s ek> s ekelklj s lq / khj j ax jko o ekelklq ek/koh lq / khj g s n s[ khy vgenkckn ; sF k s ; so q u eyk Vk sp q u ck sy r vl s o ek> s irhp s dku Hk#u eyk = kl n s. k sl Hkkx ikMr vl s -

ek> s eke lklj s o lklq g s ek> s vkbZ oMhyk ap s ?kjh ; so q u f'kohxkG djhr vl s eh lkljh uk an r vlrk au k fn- [email protected]@2016 jk st h ek> s irh o lklq lklj s ;k au h ek> s ekek fd'kk sj ikVhy ;k au k ck sy ko wu R;k ap s' kh Hkk aM .k r aV k d:u ek> s bPN s fo:/n ek> s v ax kojhy loZ L =h/kukp s nkfxu s

(4) 943 cri appln 3376.17

dk<q u ?k so q u eyk cGtcjh ekeklk sc r gkdy wu fny s o lk af xry s dh] rq E gh 10 yk[k :i; s yW c Vkd.k sl kBh n;ky rj rq e ph Hkkph uk an sy ukgh rj uk an .kkj ukgh vl s Eg.q k u gkdy wu fny s-

R;ku ar j fnuk ad [email protected]@2017 jk st h ldkGh 10-00 ok- p s lq e kjkl ek> s lkljp s yk sd irh] lklq lklj s] t sB ] t sB k.kh] o ekelklj s] ekelklq vl s ek> s oMhyk ad M s f'kjiq j ; sF k s vky s r a sO gk eh o ek> s vkbZ oMhyk au h ek> s irh o lklq lklj s] t sB ] t sB k.kh] o ekelklj s] lklq ;k ap fopkjiq l d sy h vlrk ] ek> s irh eyk o ek> s vkbZ oMhyk au k Eg.kky s dh] rq E gh yW c Vkd.k sl kBh 10 yk[k :i; s n;ky rj rq e ph eq y xh uk an oq ukgh rj dk s& ;k LVW W E i Qjdrh lkBh lgh d:u n;k-

ek> s eke lklq lklj s Eg.kky s dh] vkrk ,d dkMhp s nk su rq d M s d:u o sx G s djk rq e p sd M wu t s gk sb Z y rs d:u ?;k vl s Eg.k wu eyk o ek> s vkbZ oMhyk au k o ukr so kbZ d k au k f'kohxkG d:u fto s ekj.k sp h /kedh n so q u fu? kq u x sy s-

v'kkiz d kj s rk- [email protected]@2013 r s rk- [email protected]@2017 jk st hp s ldkGh 10-00 ok- p s njE;ku o sG k so Gh eyk ek> s irh] lklq ] lklj s] t sB ] t sB k.kh] o ekelklj s lklq v'kk au h ] eh yW c Vkd.k sl kBh 10 yk[k :i; s vk.kko sr ;k dkj.kko:u ek>k o sG k so sG h ekufld o 'kkjhfjd NG d:u] xk at ikB d:u

(5) 943 cri appln 3376.17

ek> s L=h/kukp s ojhy ueq n nkfxu s dk<q u ?k so q u Vkdq u ? kkry s vkg s Eg.kq u ek>h 1 ½ irh & fo'kky iz Y gknjko ikVhy] 2½ lklq & lq u an k iz Y gknjko ikVhy] 3½ lklj s & iz Y gknjko n so jke ikVhy] 4½ t sB & rq ' kkj iz Y gkn ikVhy] 5½ t sB k.kh & 'kq H kk ax h rq ' kkj ikVhy loZ jk- 706] i ap rhFkZ vikVZ e a sU V tk s/ kiq j jLrk] vgenkckn xq t jkr o 6½ ekelklj s & lq / khj j ax jko ikVhy 7½ ekelklq & ek/koh lq / khj ikVhy nk sU gh jk- lq H kk'k dkyuh] f'kjiq j ;k ap s fo:/n eghyk rdz k j fuokj.k d{k /kq G s ;k au h fny sY ;k i=kUo; s fQ;kZ n fnyh vkg s- "

(Underlines added)

7. Upon careful perusal of the allegations re-produced herein-

above from the F.I.R., the said allegations against the applicants are

omnibus, vague and general in nature and do not disclose any specific

offence as such. Though, the incident dated 17.05.2017 is quoted, so far

as actual demand is concerned, it is alleged that husband demanded

Rupees Ten Lakhs. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations as against

the applicants in the F.I.R. and also the fact that the applicants are

residing at Shirpur and the matrimonial home is situated at Ahmedabad

which is approximately 400 kms away from Shirpur, we are of the opinion

that the allegations made against the applicants are absurd.

(6) 943 cri appln 3376.17

8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal1 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.

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

1AIR 1992 SC 604

(7) 943 cri appln 3376.17

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.

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.

The case of the applicants would be covered under category

nos.1 and 5 of the categories mentioned herein-above.

(8) 943 cri appln 3376.17

9. The Supreme Court in another judgment 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 of

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V.

Prasad3 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."

2 (2012) 10 SCC 741 3 (2000) 3 SCC 693

(9) 943 cri appln 3376.17

10. In the light of discussion herein-above, the F.I.R. bearing

Crime No. 182 of 2017 dated 03.06.2017 for the offence punishable

under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed qua the applicants.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. The application is disposed of

accordingly.

11. The observations made herein-above are prima facie in

nature and confined to adjudication of the present application only.

      [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                      [S.S. SHINDE, J.]



mub