Ravikiran S/O. K.V.V.R.R. Rao And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7290 Bom

APL  606/17                                          1                          Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No. 606/2017
1.    Ravikiran s/o K.V.V.R.R. Rao,
      Aged about 34 years, Occ. Private job,
      Add:- plot no.113/3, Row House 3,
      Sundar House, Behind Tuli College,
      Koradi Road, Nagpur-440 011.
2.    Mr.K.V.V.R.R. Rao,
      Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retired,
      Add:- plot no.113/3, Row House 3,
      Sundar House, Behind Tuli College,
      Koradi Road, Nagpur-440 011.
3.    Mrs.K. Surya Kumari,
      Aged about 59 years, Occ. Home Maker,
      Add:- plot no.113/3, Row House 3,
      Sundar House, Behind Tuli College,
      Koradi Road, Nagpur-440 011.                                          APPLICANTS
                                    .....VERSUS.....
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Through the police station officer, 
      Koradi police station, Nagpur.
2.    Sweta Moon (Rao),
      Aged: 32 years Occ- presently not working,
      Add: Plot No.301, Royal Palace, C-wing,
      Gittikhadan, Nagpur 440 013.                                          NON-APPLICA
                                                                                        NTS

        Shri M.P. Kariya with Mrs.Smita Singalkar, counsel for the applicants.
     Shri P.S. Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no.1.
       Shri R.N. Sen with Ms Komal Bajaj, counsel for the non-applicant no.2.


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.                

DATE : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

The criminal application is ADMITTED and heard finally at

the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties.

APL 606/17 2 Judgment

2. By this criminal application, the applicants have sought the

quashing and setting aside of the first information report registered

against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Section 10(1)(b) of the

Passport Act, 1971.

3. The applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 are the

husband and wife. The marriage of the applicant no.1 and the non-

applicant no.2 was solemnized on 15.05.2011. The applicant no.1 and

the non-applicant no.2 resided together in the matrimonial house at

Nagpur till 2014. The parties started residing separately in December-

2014. Certain allegations are made in the criminal application by the

applicants against the non-applicant no.2 with which we are not

concerned in this criminal application. On 03.08.2017, the non-applicant

no.2 lodged a report in Koradi police station alleging therein that the

applicant no.1 used to beat the non-applicant no.2 after consuming

liquor and the applicants always used to humiliate the non-applicant no.2

as she belongs to the scheduled castes. It is alleged in the report lodged

by the non-applicant no.2 that the applicant no.1 used to time and again

ask the non-applicant no.2 to bring money from her father. It is further

alleged that in January-2017 when the non-applicant no.2 went to the

house of the applicant nos.2 and 3, who are her father-in-law and

APL 606/17 3 Judgment

mother-in-law, respectively, the mother-in-law and the applicant no.1 had

asked her to ask her father to transfer his house at Gittikhadan in the

name of the non-applicant no.2. It is alleged that the non-applicant no.2

had refused to seek the transfer of the house in the name of the applicant

no.1. It is also alleged that when the parents and the other relatives of

the non-applicant no.2 went to meet her in-laws, they were informed that

the applicant no.1 was not ready to reside with the non-applicant no.2 in

the matrimonial home. It is alleged in the report that when the applicant

no.1 sought for the renewal of his passport some time in the month of

June-2017, the non-applicant no.2 became aware that the applicant no.1

had supplied false information in the application for renewal of passport,

inasmuch as he had stated in the passport application that he was 'single'.

On the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant no.2, the non-

applicant no.1 registered the first information report against the

applicants under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code

and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act.

4. Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted

that the applicant no.1 is not desirous of pressing the prayer made in the

criminal application and the first information report registered against the

applicant nos.2 and 3 may be quashed and set aside. It is stated that the

first information report could not have been registered against the

APL 606/17 4 Judgment

applicant nos.2 and 3 under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act as they

had not applied for passport and had not supplied any wrongful

information in the application for renewal of passport. It is submitted

that an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code also

could not have been registered against the applicant nos.2 and 3 as no

allegation is made by the non-applicant no.2 in the report that the

applicant nos.2 and 3 had at any point of time asked the non-applicant

no.2 to secure any property or any other valuable security from her father

or parents for any of the applicants. It is stated that it cannot be prima-

facie said on the basis of the allegations made in the first information

report that the applicant nos.2 and 3 had treated the non-applicant no.2

with 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.

5. Shri Tembhare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the non-applicant no.1, fairly states that there is no

other allegation in regard to the demand of property or valuable

security against the applicant nos.2 and 3 except a statement

in the first information report that the non-applicant no.2 had

refused to ask her father to transfer his house in Gittikhadan in favour of

the applicant no.1. It is, however, submitted that the applicants always

humiliated the non-applicant no.2 as she belonged to the scheduled

castes.

APL 606/17 5 Judgment

6. Shri Sen, the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2,

submitted that the applicant nos.2 and 3 treated the non-applicant no.2

with cruelty. It is submitted that the applicant nos.2 and 3 always

humiliated the non-applicant no.2 as she belongs to the scheduled castes

and they had also ill-treated the relatives of the non-applicant no.2.

7. On a reading of the allegations in the first information report,

as are made against the applicant nos.2 and 3, we find that prima-facie an

offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code cannot be

made out against the applicant nos.2 and 3. It is not alleged by the non-

applicant no.2 in the report lodged by her against the applicants that at

any point of time, the applicant nos.2 and 3 had demanded any property

or any valuable security from the parents or the relatives of the non-

applicant no.2 and that due to the non-fulfillment of that demand, they

had ill-treated and harassed the non-applicant no.2. We do not find any

such allegation in the report lodged by the non-applicant no.2 against the

applicant nos.2 and 3. Merely because the applicant nos.2 and 3 did not

like the non-applicant no.2 because she belongs to the scheduled castes

and they had told the relatives of the non-applicant no.2 that the

marriage between the applicant no.1 and the non-applicant no.2 was on

the verge of breakdown, the offence under Section 498-A of the Penal

Code could not have been registered against the applicant nos.2 and 3.

APL 606/17 6 Judgment

Also, the offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act

could not have been registered against the applicant nos.2 and 3. There

is no mention in the first information report that the applicant nos.2 and

3 had applied for passport and in the said application they had made

some incorrect or false statements. We find that the first information

report is wrongfully registered against the applicant nos.2 and 3 under

Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, without application of mind.

8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is

partly allowed. The first information report registered against the

applicant nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the

Passport Act is hereby quashed and set aside.

Order accordingly.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE

APTE