Bombay High Court
Kuldipsingh S/O. Shobhasingh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 31 October, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4330 OF 2017
1] Kuldipsingh S/o Shobhasingh
Sandhu Pujari,
Age:40 Years, Occ.: Advocate,
R/o Badpura Gurudwara gate no.4
Nanded.
2] Papinder Singh S/o Shobha Singh
Sandhu Pujari,
Age 45 years, Occu.Police Constable
R/o Vishnupuri, Tal.& Dist.Nanded
3] Sau.Sukhmindarkaur w/o DilipsinghMalli,
@ Soni, Age 36 years, Occ-Household
R/o Sahidpura, Gurudwara gate no.6,
Nanded.
4] Dilip Singh Basant Singh Malli,
Age 42 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Sahidpura, Gurudawara gate no.6
Nanded.
5] Manjitkaur W/o Kartalsingh Bhoshikar,
Age 54 years, Occ-Housewife,
R/o Samarth Nagar, Usmanpura.
6] Charanjeet Kaur @ Roma D/o
Kartal Singh Bhoshikar,
Age 36 years,occ.Housewife,
R/o Samarth nagar,
Usmanpura, Aurangabad. Appellants
[Original accused]
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:05:17 :::
2
1] The State of Maharashtra
(Through Incharge police
station Officer), Police
Station Nanded Gramin (Rural)
(Copy for respondent be served
on public prosecutor,High Court
bench at Aurangabad)
2] Sau.Gurupreetkaur Balwant
Singh Sandhu
Age 32 years, Occ.Household
R/o Usmanpura, Aurangabad
Mob.No.98609229333 .. RESPONDENTS
[ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT]
-----
Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for applicants.
Mr.V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent No. 1.
Adv.P.R.Wankhede, for respondent No.2.
-----
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 06/10/ 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 31/10/2017.
JUDGMENT ( PER MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2] This is an application invoking the powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing No.278/2017
registered with Police Station, Nanded (Rural), on a complaint lodged
by respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507 read with 34 of IPC. The respondent no.2
is the wife of one Balwant Singh @ Luckysingh and the applicants
are his cousin brothers and their wives.
3] Shortly stated, the allegations in the FIR are to the effect that
the applicants alongwith the husband of respondent no.2 and his
parents did not disclose that Luckysingh was suffering from some
kind of addiction and was unable to sleep without pills. Without
disclosing this fact and also misleading respondent no.2 about his
post in the police department, all of them deceived her to marry
Luckysingh. Thus she was cheated to marry Luckysingh. According
to the respondent no.2, when the fact of his such addiction/ailment
was revealed to her and her parents, they consulted various doctors
from Aurangabad and the fact that he was suffering from such
ailment was confirmed. Annoyed by such revelation of the fact and
other grounds, Luckysingh, his parents, his real brother and real
brother's wife alongwith present applicants started abusing and ill-
treating her. They treated her with cruelty. She was made to
forcibly abort and thus, all of them conjointly treated her with cruelty.
4] We have perused police papers, affidavit in reply filed by
respondent no.2. We have heard learned advocate for the
applicants, learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the
respondent no.2 in exten so.
5] According to the learned advocate for the applicants, the
allegations in the FIR are ex facie improbable. The complaint has
been filed with a mala fide intention to harass all the family members
of Luckysingh. Out of matrimonial dispute, respondent no.2 has
repeatedly filed complaints against all the in-laws. The dispute was
also referred to Women's Complaint Redressal Committee and the
applicants are no way concerned with the alleged ill-treatment and
had no role in cheating respondent no.2 to marry Luckysingh. Even
if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, they do not
make out necessary ingredients for constituting offence for which the
applicants are being roped in. The learned advocate for the
applicants also relied upon the decision in the case of State of
Haryana V/s Bhajanlal; AIR 1992 S.C. 604 .
6] The learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and the learned
APP vehemently opposed the application. The learned advocate for
respondent no.2 submitted that the Petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and latches inasmuch as the FIR has been
registered on 19/5/2017 and the application has been moved
belatedly on 6/8/2017. He is also submitted that even applicants are
not entitled to the discretionary relief invoking powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., since they have falsely shown their wrong addresses
in the title clause just to demonstrate that they are residing far away
from the residential houses of the husband and in-laws of the
respondent no.2. The learned advocate submitted that the
ingredients for the offences registered against applicants can easily
be made out from a careful reading of the FIR. At this juncture this
Court cannot go into veracity or otherwise of the facts alleged. The
learned advocate also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme
Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu V/s
Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others; (2011) 8 SCALE 128 and
in the case of N.Soundaram V/s P.K.Pounraj; 2015 (88) AllCC 305
and submitted that even by invoking the principles laid down in the
case of Bhajanlal (supra) the applicants' case does not fit in any of
the instances enlisted therein.
7] We need not elaborate much on the legal aspects as regards
the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
quash an FIR. Those are far too are well settled by catina of
pronouncements which the Supreme Court has culled down initially
in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and recently in the case of Padal
Venkata Rama Reddy (supra). Suffice for the purpose to reproduce
the broader guidelines, laid down in the case of Bhajanlal, which
read thus :
"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
of 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 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."
8] A careful reading of these guidelines would reveal that inherent
powers of the High Court can only be invoked in rare cases
inasmuch as the scrutiny at this stage cannot be a threadbare one.
A fact alleged needs to be proved and a party alleging it need to be
extended sufficient opportunity to establish it, which cannot take
place in this proceeding. Therefore, at this stage, only the
allegations made in the FIR need to be looked into, to ascertain if
those are sufficient to constitute the offences registered. It seems
that even this view now has been extended by the Supreme Court in
the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy (supra). It has now been
laid down that even it is not necessary that the FIR should expressly
cover all the ingredients for constituting the offence. It is not
supposed to be an encyclopedia and even a cursory reference
coupled with the other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer
would ultimately be looked into by the trial Court to ascertain if all the
allegations have would constitute a particular offence. In this
respect, following observations from paragraph no.24 in the case of
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy (supra) are indeed important, which
read as under :
"24. We have already pointed out various
principles and circumstances under which the
High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable or
not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge The scope of
exercise of power under Section 482 and the
categories of cases where the High Court may
exercise its power under it relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan
Lal (supra). The powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 are very wide and at
the same time the power requires great caution
in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. It would not be proper for the High
Court to analyse the case of the complainant in
the light of all the probabilities in order to
determine whether conviction would be
sustainable and on such premise arriving at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be
quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a
complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash
the proceedings is called for only in a case in
which complaint does not disclose any offence
or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is
no need to analyse each and every aspect
meticulously before the trial to find out whether
the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
The complaint has to be read as a whole. The
statement of witnesses made on oath to be
verified in full and materials put forth in the
charge sheet ought to be taken note of as a
whole before arriving any conclusion. It is the
material concluded during the investigation and
evidence led in court which decides the fate of
the accused persons. "
9] Bearing in mind the above principles, if one carefully reads the
FIR which is quite prolix and runs into more than six pages, at
various places like paragraphs no.1, 5, 6 and 7, allegations have
been specifically levelled against the present applicants that they all
obtained the consent of the respondent no.2 for performing marriage
with Luckysingh. There are allegations against all the applicants that
they used to instigate Luckysingh to beat respondent no.2. There
are allegations that they instigated Luckysingh to have the
respondent no.2's abortion. They threatened her and that the
applicants instigated the respondent no.2's in-laws and Luckysingh to
demand money. As is observed above, this is not the appropriate
stage to verify the correctness or otherwise of these allegations.
Therefore, the submission of the learned advocate for the applicants
that it is necessary that the allegations in the FIR should be
elaborate so as to attribute role to each of the applicants, is too
broad a statement to be worthy of acceptance.
10] It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.2 alongwith her
affidavit in reply has produced a document to show that she had
sustained injuries and the Medical Officer has issued this extract of
treatment taken by her at Government Medical College Hospital. The
police papers further reveal that the Investigating Officer has already
collected material in the form of voter's identity card, electricity bills
etc. which prima facie show that the applicants have been residing
near the in-law's place of the respondent no.2. The statements have
been recorded of witnesses who have in unison stated about
frequent quarrels of the respondent no.2 with her in-laws including
the present applicants. In view of such state of affairs, we are not
inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. The present case does not
fit in any of the instances laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra).
Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected.
11] It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are
made only to the extent of decision of this matter and shall not
preclude the applicants in availing the suitable remedy for discharge,
if so advised.
12] The application is rejected. Rule is discharged.
( MANGESH S. PATIL,J.) (S.S.SHINDE ,J.)
umg/
