Bombay High Court
Jibhau Ravan Sonawane And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) cri.wp 686.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 686 OF 2017
1. Jibhau s/o Ravan Sonawane
Age: 58 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Aarey Colony, Goregaon,
Mumbai.
2. Urmila w/o Jibhau Sonawane
Age: 51 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Aarey Colony, Goregaon,
Mumbai.
3. Dr. Subhash s/o Sonyabapu Pawar
Age: 34 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
R/o Flat No.6, Atre Niwas,
In front of Kamgar Nagar,
Nashik.
4. Dr. Bharti w/o Subhash Pawar
Age: 30 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
R/o Flat No.6, Atre Niwas,
In front of Kamgar Nagar,
Nashik.
5. Govind s/o Ravan Sonawane
Age: 65 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Flat No.5, Shri Balaji Darshan Apartment,
Wing B, Shourya Park, Adgaon
Taluka and District Nashik.
6. Shakintala w/o Govind Sonawane
Age: 56 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Flat No.5, Shri Balaji Darshan Apartment,
Wing B, Shourya Park, Adgaon
Taluka and District Nashik.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:05:18 :::
(2) cri.wp 686.17
7. Pandurang s/o Ravan Sonawane
Age: 48 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Vise Mala, College Road,
Nashik, District Nashik.
8. Varsha w/o Pandurang Sonawane
Age: 39 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Vise Mala, College Road,
Nashik, District Nashik.
9. Somnath s/o Ravan Sonawane
Age: 66 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Nampur, Taluka Baglan,
District Nashik.
10. Sushila w/o Somnath Sonawane
Age: 63 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Nampur, Taluka Baglan,
District Nashik. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Deopur Police Station, Dhule
Dhule.
2. Sau. Vrushali w/o Deviprasad Sonawane
Age : 30 years, Occ: Household,
R/o c/o Chudaman Daga Pawar,
Trimurti Nagar, Gondur Road,
Deopur, Dhule. ... Respondents
-----
Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
Mr. N.L. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent no.2.
-----
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:05:18 :::
(3) cri.wp 686.17
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 11.10.2017
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 31.10.2017
...
JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.)
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
both the sides the matter is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking
quashment of F.I.R., charge-sheet filed in consequence thereof and the
further proceedings registered on that basis bearing Regular Criminal
Case no. 405 of 2016 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dhule.
3. As usual, out of matrimonial dispute arising between the
respondent no.2 and her husband, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged
with the allegations inter alia to the effect that the husband and parents
in law, as well as the cousin brothers of father in law and their wives
(petitioner nos. 5 to 10), as also the sister in law (petitioner no.3) and
the husband (petitioner no.4) have been roped in by alleging that they all
collectively raised a demand of Rupees Thirty Lakhs from her for buying
(4) cri.wp 686.17
a car and on that count all started beating and abusing her and
threatened her of dire consequences. It is on the basis of such complaint
that the offence was registered at Deopur Police Station, District Dhule
under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, resulting in filing of the charge-sheet.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that ex facie the allegations in the F.I.R. are vague and
omnibus qua all the petitioners. Applying the principle laid down in the
case of Taramani Parakh V/s. State of M.P. and Ors. 2015 AIR
(SC) 794, the criminal proceeding initiated against them is nothing but
an abuse of process of law resorted to by the respondent no.2.
5. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for respondent
no.2 opposed the petition.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the
documents. Though cryptic, the F.I.R. does contain specific allegations
by naming all the petitioners. In fact in addition to the petitioners, the
F.I.R. also contains an allegation against one more cousin parent in law
Gangadhar and his wife Sindhu. However, after the witnesses Satish
Talele, his wife Saroj Talele and one Vaishali Sonawane and her husband
(5) cri.wp 686.17
Pankaj Sonawane, who are all residing in front of the house of the
respondent no.2 and her husband, specifically stated that Gangadhar and
Sindhu had never been to the house of the couple, that apparently the
prosecution against Gangadhar and Sindhu has been dropped. However,
simultaneously these four witnesses have stated that the rest of the
accused i.e. the petitioners though residing elsewhere in the same town
have been visiting the house of the couple and they have seen them
quarreling with the respondent no.2. Similarly, it has been specifically
alleged that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have been coming to the house
of the couple and the petitioner no.4 was in fact staying with them for
couple of months during her delivery. True it is that the petitioner nos. 1
and 2 who are the parents in law of the respondent no.2 have been
apparently staying in Mumbai, whereas, the couple is staying at Nashik.
However, simply on the basis of this fact, one cannot jump to the
conclusion that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 could have never visited the
house of the couple. Rather being the parents in law they must have
been visiting the house of the couple particularly when even the
petitioner no.4 being the daughter of the family was staying with the
couple for couple of months for her delivery.
7. Under these circumstances, even though the petitioner nos. 5
(6) cri.wp 686.17
to 10 apparently are distant relatives, they are indeed relatives of the
rest of the petitioners staying either in the same town or at nearby
places. Therefore, at this juncture we are not inclined to quash and
abruptly terminate the trial by quashing the F.I.R. and the criminal
proceedings.
8. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
mub
