Mrs Manisha Rahul Bhosle And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 8260 Bom

                                  1                   Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1524 OF 2016

     1.      Mrs. Manisha Rahul Bhosle,
             Age - 37 years, Occu. Service,
     2.      Shri. Rahul Yuvraj Bhosle, 
             Age - 40 years, Occu. Service, 
             Resident at Mungi Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
             Block No.1, Survey No.192/B, 
             Jahirabad, Tal. Dist. Medak (A.P.).
     3.      Shri. Amolkumar Vasantrao Patil,
             Age - 35 years, Occu. Service, 
             R/o Flat No.101, 1st Cross, 3rd Main Road, 
             LB Shastrinagar Vimanapura Post, 
             Opp. to APSA Dream School, 
             Bangalore 560 017, Karnataka. ...  Petitioners

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra
             Through the Officer in charge
             Devpur Police Station,
             Dhule, District Dhule.
     2.      Sau. Trupti Amol Patil,
             Age 27 years, Occu. Household,
             Resident of 203/9, Cross, K P C layout,
             Kaswananalli, Sarajpur Road, Bangalore
             Presently residing of plot No.6,
             Near Swami Nagar Kamalani Hospital,
             Nakane Road, Dhule.              ...  Respondents

                                   ...
             Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners
             Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent No.1-State 
             Mr. M.S.Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                   ...




::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2017 02:05:20 :::
                                        2                  Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt


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

RESERVED ON : 12th October, 2017 PRONOUCED ON : 31st October, 2017

JUDGMENT : (Per Mangesh S. Patil , J.) :-

1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned advocates for the

parties.

2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under

Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India for

quashing of Crime No.95 of 2016, registered under

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'),

registered at Devpur Police Station, Dhule. The offence

has been registered on a complaint filed by the

Respondent No.2 alleging inter alia that since after her

marriage with the Petitioner No.3, he along with his

married sister (Petitioner No.1) and her husband

(Petitioner No.2) started ill-treating her. Inspite of

spending huge amount in performance of the marriage,

3 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

all the in-laws started insulting her alleging that they

were not appropriately treated at the marriage. They

started asking her to fetch money from her parents for

buying a Honda City Car and also started insisting that

she should bring Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs)

for purchasing a flat. In order to extract the money they

all started physically and mentally harassing her. The

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 instigated her parents in-law and

her husband in raising the demand for money and in

beating her. They also started teasing her whenever she

used to complain about the ill-treatment by her

husband by saying that she deserved it. An amount of

more than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) was also

withdrawn from her account without her consent. It is

on the basis of such complaint that the impugned FIR

has been registered.

3. We have heard the learned Advocate for the

Petitioners. He submitted that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2

are residents of Jahirabad Town, Taluka and District

Medak, in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.

4 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

However, only with a view to harass all the in-laws they

have been roped in mala fide. There are no concrete

allegations against them and no case can be made out

against them even if the allegations in the FIR are taken

at their face value. The learned Advocate for the

Petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of (i) Taramani Parakh Vs.

State of M.P. & Ors., [2015 AIR (SC) 704] and (ii)

Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.

[AIR 2013 Supreme Court 181].

4. Per contra, the learned Advocate for the

Respondent No.2 and the learned APP strenuously

argued that the allegations in the complaint clearly refer

to the role played by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in

instigating Petitioner No.3 in harassing Respondent No.2

on account of unlawful demand of money. Already the

charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending

trial before the Criminal Court and an opportunity

needs to be extended to the prosecution to substantiate

the charges levelled against the Petitioners. They

5 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

argued that in view of the stage of the proceeding where

the charge is to be framed, it will not be appropriate to

quash the entire criminal proceeding.

5. We have carefully perused the documents

furnished along with the Petition and the investigation

papers. Apparently, though Petitioner No.3, who

happens to be the husband of the Respondent No.2 has

been added as a Petitioner subsequent to the filing of

the petition without making any suitable change in the

prayer clause, we will have to proceed assuming that the

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR and the

criminal proceedings qua Petitioner No.3 also. However,

suffice for the purpose to observe that there are

apparently several allegations levelled by Respondent

No.2 against Petitioner No.3, which prima facie

constitute 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498-A

of IPC.

6. As regards the role attributed to Petitioner Nos.1

and 2, it is necessary to observe at the cost of repetition

that even against them clear allegations have been

6 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

levelled in the complaint about they having instigated

Petitioner No.3 and his parents to treat Respondent No.2

with cruelty. Simply because they are residents of a

distant place one cannot readily infer that they have no

role to play in the treatment meted out to Respondent

No.2. It has been specifically alleged in the complaint

that during the festival of Diwali of the year 2015 they

had been to the house of Petitioner No.3 and

Respondent No.2 and even during that time they had

instigated Petitioner No.3 while he was ill-treating

Respondent No.2. It is not that there is only a vague

and isolated instance attributed against Petitioner Nos.1

and 2. At several places in the complaint one can find

reference to the role played by them in the alleged ill-

treatment meted out to the Respondent No.2.

7. It is trite that a criminal proceeding cannot be

given an abrupt stop without extending any opportunity

to the prosecution to establish its allegations. The

decision cited on behalf of the Petitioners (Supra) in our

considered view do not help them to salvage any ground.

7 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

In the case of Taramani Parakh (supra) the observations

have been made that quashing of a charge is an

exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where

the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should

be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution

rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court

is not expected to martial the records with a view to

decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or

records but has to form only a prima facie opinion. It is

to be noted that these observations made by the

Supreme Court in its earlier decision in the case of

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. [(2012) 8

SCC 460] have been quoted with approval in this

subsequent decision. Applying all these principles laid

down in the case of Amit Kapoor (Supra) also, the

Petitioners are not entitled to claim quashing of the

proceeding in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present case, as discussed herein above.

8. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) also the

facts were peculiar to the case wherein it was noted that

8 Cri.W.P.1524-16.odt

there were no allegations against Ku. Geeta Mehrotra

and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their

names in the matrimonial dispute without allegations of

active involvement. In the matter in hand, as is

observed above, the FIR does contain specific role

attributed to Petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

9. In view of above, we are not inclined to stall the

criminal proceedings abruptly and the petition is liable

to be dismissed.

10. However, it is made clear that the observations

made herein above are confined to the decision of the

present Writ Petition and the learned Trial Judge shall

not get influenced by these observations. It is also

made clear that the petitioners shall be at liberty to

apply for discharge, if so advised.

11. The petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) ...

vmk/-