Bombay High Court
Vijay Chandrasen Chauhan And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 27 September, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2109APL105.17-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 105 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1. Vijay Chandrasen Chauhan, Age about 29
yrs., Occ. Service,
2. Chandrasen Narayan Chauhan, Age 55 yrs.,
Occ. Service,
3. Kalpana Chandrasen Chauhan, Age about 50
yrs., Occ. Housewife,
4. Sau. Surekha Dinkar Malve, Age about 34
yrs., Occ. Service,
All the above applicants residing at
Ramkrushna Nagar, Tembhurkhed Road,
Varud, Tq. Varud, Distt. Amravati.
5. Sau. Yogita Gopal Malve, Age about 32 yrs.,
Occ. Housewife, r/o. Vitthal Nagar, Mothi
Umbri, Akola, tq. & Distt. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Police Station Dabki
Road, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
2. Sau.Sonal Vijay Chauhan, Aged about 23
yrs., Occ. Housewife, r/o c/o Nagorav
Maroti Rathod, Dabki Road, Nagar, Akola,
tq.& Distt. Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.P. S. Gawai & Mr.Piyush Girdekar, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.A. M. Joshi, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1.
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 :::
2109APL105.17-Judgment 2/6
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 27.09.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (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.
2. By this criminal application, the applicants, who are the
husband and the in-laws of the non-applicant No.2 have sought the
quashing and setting aside of the first information report lodged against
them for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506
read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
3. Shri Gawai, the learned counsel for the applicants, fairly
states that the applicant Nos.1 to 3 would not press the prayer made in
the application and the prayer made in the application should be
considered only in respect of the applicant Nos.4 and 5. It is stated on
behalf of the applicant Nos.4 and 5 that even if the allegations made
against the applicant Nos.4 and 5, who are the sisters of the husband of
the non-applicant No.2, are accepted at their face value and in the
2109APL105.17-Judgment 3/6
entirety, an offence under sections 498-A and 506 of the Penal Code
cannot be prima facie made out against them. It is submitted that a
general allegation is made in the report lodged by the non-applicant
No.2 that the applicant No.4 Surekha and the father and mother-in-law
of the non-applicant No.2 used to harass the non-applicant No.2
mentally when the applicant No.1 was absent in the matrimonial home.
It is stated that against the applicant No.5 it is alleged that though she
was residing at Akola, she used to call the applicant No.1 viz. the
husband of the non-applicant No.2 and instigate him to harass the non-
applicant No.2 and to dissolve the matrimonial ties. It is stated that it is
alleged against the applicant No.5 that she used to ask the applicant
No.1 to demand money from the non-applicant No.2 and behave badly
with her so that she would leave the matrimonial house. It is stated
that even if the said allegations are accepted at their face value and in
the entirety, the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506
of the Penal Code cannot be prima facie made out against the applicant
Nos.4 and 5.
4. Shri Tembhare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the non-applicant No.1, submitted that serious allegations are
levelled against the applicant Nos.1 to 3 and though the applicant No.5
was residing at Akola, she used to instigate the applicant No.1 to
2109APL105.17-Judgment 4/6
behave badly with the non-applicant No.2 so that she should leave the
matrimonial home. It is submitted that on the basis of the allegations
made by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 that
they used to harass the non-applicant No.2, the first information report
was registered.
5. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the non-applicant
No.2, submitted that the applicant Nos.4 and 5 always used to harass
the non-applicant No.2. It is stated that though specific allegations are
not made against the applicant No.4, on the basis of the general
allegations made against the applicant Nos.2 to 5, the non-applicant
No.1 has rightly registered the first information report against the
applicant Nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that the applicant Nos.4 and 5
always used to interfere in the affairs of the applicant No.1 and the non-
applicant No.2 and used to force the applicant No.1 to dissolve the
marriage between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2.
6. On a reading of the allegations in the first information
report, it appears that specific allegations are not made against the
applicant Nos.4 and 5, for registering a first information report against
them for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of
the Penal Code. A general allegation is made against the applicant No.4
2109APL105.17-Judgment 5/6
that when the applicant No.1 was not present in the house, the
applicant Nos.2 to 5 used to mentally harass the non-applicant No.2. A
general statement is again made against the applicant No.5, who is not
a resident of Varud, where the matrimonial home is situated, that she
used to call the applicant No.1 viz. the husband of the non-applicant
No.2 and instigate him to behave badly with the non-applicant No.2 so
that the non-applicant No.2 should leave the matrimonial home and the
marriage ties between them are broken. Even if we assume that the
applicant No.5 was calling the applicant No.1 and was instigating him
to behave badly with the non-applicant No.2, it would not be "cruelty"
as is defined under section 498-A of the Penal Code. Every act of
cruelty, inflicted by the husband or his relatives would not be cruelty
within the meaning of section 498-A of the Penal Code. Only if the acts
of cruelty are inflicted with a view to demand money or any valuable
security, the ingredients of section 498-A could be made out. Also, if
the acts of cruelty are such that the complainant is driven to such a
position that she is compelled to commit suicide, the said acts could be
termed as 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498-A of the Penal
Code. The allegations made against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 are not of
the aforesaid nature. In the circumstances of the case, the first
information report registered against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 needs to
be quashed and set aside, more so, since we find that when nothing was
2109APL105.17-Judgment 6/6
not well between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2,
general allegations are made against the sisters of the applicant No.1 in
the report lodged with the non-applicant No.1.
7. In the result, the criminal application is partly allowed.
The first information report registered against the applicant Nos.4 and 5
is quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
