Bombay High Court
Raosaheb S/O. Narhari Lokhande ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
3231.17appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3231 OF 2017
1. Raosaheb S/o Narhari Lokhande
Age : 70 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Bhete Galli, Wadwal (Nagnath),
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
2. Lalitabai W/o Raosaheb Lokhande
Age : 70 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Bhete Galli, Wadwal (Nagnath),
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
3. Vishwanath S/o Vithoba Jadhav
Age : 68 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Yellam Galli Va Lohar Galli,
Janwal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
4. Yamunabai W/o Vishwanath Jadhav
Age : 65 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Yellam Galli Va Lohar Galli,
Janwal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
5. Mukund S/o Ramchandra Suryawanshi
Age : 44 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Phulari Galli, Ahmedpur,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
6. Anusaya W/o Mukund Suryawanshi
Age : 37 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Phulari Galli, Ahmedpur,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
7. Bharat S/o Namdeo Jadhav
Age : 71 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Anandwadi, Post. Kharola,
Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:20 :::
3231.17appln.odt
2
8. Mathurabai W/o Gangaram Suryawanshi
Age : 75 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Shend, Tq. Shirur Anantpal,
Dist. Latur.
..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Chakur,
Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
2. Jyoti W/o Balasaheb Jadhav
Age : 22 years, Occ : Household,
C/o Laxman Uttamrao Surwase
R/o Pohregaon, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.J.R. Patil, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent/State
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10.10.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.10.2017
JUDGMENT : (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
Inspite of service on Respondent
No.2 on couple of occasions, including the
service of notice for final disposal, none
appears for respondent no.2.
3231.17appln.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith
and heard finally with the consent of the
learned counsel appearing for the applicants
and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the
Respondent - State.
3. The background facts for filing the
present application, as disclosed in the memo
of application, in brief are as under :
The applicants have been arrayed as
accused by Respondent No.2, in F.I.R.
No. 14/2017 registered on 17.01.2017 with
Police Station, Chakur, Tq. Chakur, Dist.
Latur for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is
the case of the applicants that, the
applicants are the distinct relatives of
Respondent No.2 and residing at distinct
places, and are roped in false and frivolous
3231.17appln.odt
F.I.R. filed by Respondent No.2 with a view
to harass the relatives of the husband. It is
the case of the applicants that, on 5th May,
2015, the marriage of Respondent No.2 was
solemnized with one Balasaheb Laxman Jadhav,
resident of Janwal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur,
at Pohregaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. After
the marriage, Respondent No.2 cohabited for
few days at her matrimonial house and
thereafter she left the matrimonial house and
started residing with her parents at
Pohregaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur and now
she is residing with her parents. It is the
case of the applicants that, Respondent No.2
directly on 17th January, 2017 filed F.I.R.
with Police Station Chakur alleging that, she
was illtreated at the hands of her husband,
in-laws and these applicants on account of
demand of Rs.7,00,000/- for purchase of Auto
and to pay the loan obtained for construction
of house. It is the case of the applicants
3231.17appln.odt
that, the applicants are distinct relatives
and are residing at their houses at distinct
places. They have no occasion to visit the
house of Respondent No.2 and ill-treat her.
The allegations made in the F.I.R. are
general and vague and made only to harass the
husband and his relatives. There is
unexplained delay in respect of belated
lodging of the F.I.R., and F.I.R. is outcome
of vindictive approach on the part of
Respondent No.2. The F.I.R. against the
applicants is nothing but an abuse of process
of law. Hence this Application.
4. The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants submits that, the applicants
are residing separately and they are no way
concerned with the domestic affairs of
Respondent No.2 and her husband. It is
submitted that, there are general allegations
in the first information report as against
3231.17appln.odt
the applicants. Since the applicants are not
residing in the matrimonial home, the
allegations that, Respondent No.2 was driven
out from the matrimonial home are not against
the applicants. The learned counsel invites
our attention to the copies of the Election
Cards and Adhar Cards of the applicant nos. 1
to 7 and submits that, those documents will
make it clear that, the applicants are
residing separately.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.
appearing for respondent-State invites our
attention to the contents of the F.I.R. and
the investigation papers, and submits that,
if the allegations in the first information
report are perused, the ingredients of the
alleged offences are disclosed against the
applicants and needs further investigation.
Therefore, she submits that, the application
deserves to be rejected.
3231.17appln.odt
6. We have carefully perused the
allegations in the first information report
as against the applicants. There are general
allegations without attributing any specific
overt acts qua them. As stated in the
application, applicant no.1 - Raosaheb
Narhari Lokhande, aged 70 years is a
maternal father-in-law of respondent No.2 and
is residing separately at Wadwal, Tq. Chakur.
Applicant no.2 - Lalitabai Raosaheb Lokhande,
aged 70 years is a maternal mother-in-law of
respondent no.2 and is residing separately.
Applicant no.3 - Vishwanath Vithoba Jadhav,
aged 68 years, is the brother of father-in-
law of respondent no.2 and is residing
separately. Applicant no.4 - Yemunabai
Vishwanath Jadhav, aged 65 years, is the aunt
of husband of Respondent No.2 and is residing
separately at Janwal, Tq. Chakur. Applicant
no.5 - Mukund Ramchandra Suryawanshi, aged 44
3231.17appln.odt
years is the husband of sister of husband of
Respondent No.2 who is residing at
different place. Applicant no.6 - Anusaya
Mukund Suryawanshi, aged 37 years, is married
sister of husband of Respondent No.2 and is
residing separately. Applicant No.7 - Bharat
Namdeo Jadhav, aged 71 years, is the cousin
brother of husband of respondent no.2 and is
residing separately and applicant no.8 -
Mathurabai Gangaram Suraywanshi, aged 75
years is the aunt of husband of Respondent
No.2 and is residing separately.
7. Even if the allegations in the first
information report are taken at its face
value and read in its entirety, there are no
specific overt acts attributed as against the
applicants. As already observed, applicant
nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 are the old aged persons
and senior citizens. Applicant No.6 is
married sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 and
3231.17appln.odt
applicant no.5 is her husband. In that view
of the matter, keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, we are
of the opinion that, when there are no
specific allegations constituting any
specific offence against the applicants, it
is not desirable that, the applicants should
face mental agony of trial. Apart from it,
the further proceedings based upon general
and vague allegations, would not result into
conviction of the applicants. There are blink
chances of conviction.
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
1AIR 1992 SC 604
3231.17appln.odt
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 under Section 156(1) of the
3231.17appln.odt
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
3231.17appln.odt
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 present applicants
would be covered in category no.1 of the
abovereferred categories.
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:
2 (2012) 10 SCC 741
3 (2000) 3 SCC 693
3231.17appln.odt
"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."
3231.17appln.odt
10. In the light of discussion
hereinbefore, the application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause `B' and the same
stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
accordingly. However, we make it clear that,
the order passed today is confined only to
the present applicants and the Investigating
Officer is free to proceed further against
the other accused, if any.
The observations made hereinabove
are prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of the present application only
and the trial Court shall not get influenced
by the said observations during the trial in
respect of co-accused.
[MANGESH S. PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
SGA
