Bombay High Court
Jaywant Pannalal Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 September, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 APPLN3657.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3657 OF 2017
Shri. Jaywant Pannalal Chaudhari,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Chinchpada, Post Bodhagaon,
Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. ... Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Nandurbar Police Station,
Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar.
2. Lalsing Deoman Suryawanshi,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Aambapur, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. ... Respondents
..........
Mr P. D. Bachate, Advocate for the applicant
MrJ. R.Shah, Advocate for respondent No. 2
Mr M. M. Nerlikar, APP for respondent/State
.............
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13.09.2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : __.09.2017.
JUDGMENT (PER A. M. DHAVALE, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission
stage.
2 APPLN3657.2017
2. This is an application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of
FIR at C.R. No. 106/2017 registered on 27.04.2017 with Nandurbar
Police Station, Nanduarbar for the offence punishable u/s 384 r/w 34
of the IPC.
3. The facts relevant may be stated in brief as follows :
Respondent No. 2-Lalsing Suryawanshi, resident of
Aambapur is the original complainant. On 04.12.2016, marriage of
Vaishali d/o Lalsing Suryawanshi was arranged with the applicant -
Jaywant at Aambapur, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. The dates 29.01.2017
was fixed for engagement and 01.02.2017 for marriage. However,
the groom and their relatives told respondent No. 2 - Lalsing that
they had no enough money and if he would finance them for
marriage expenses, the said amount would be returned to him at the
time of marriage. Hence respondent No. 2 advanced an amount of
Rs. 1,50,000/- to father of bride for meeting expenses of marriage,
which would be refundable. Thereafter, Madhu Chaudhari, cousin of
the applicant informed him that the bride - Vaishali had eloped with
one boy. Respondent No. 2 told them that his daughter has not
eloped and she was in the house only. Then respondent No. 2 was
called at Chinchpada on 23.12.2016. He was informed by the
3 APPLN3657.2017
applicant - Jaywant, his father Pannalal Chaudhari, cousin Madhu
Chaudhari, Kapil Gangadhar Suryawanshi, Uttam Raghunath Bhoye,
Mohan Bhoye, Sadashiv Deoman Bhoye and Police Patil Bansilal
Namde Gaikwad that, his daughter has committed wrong and the
marriage would not be solemnised. Respondent No. 2 tried to
convince them that she has not committed any wrong and they
should come to his village and verify the fact but, he was told by the
applicant, his family members and panch that he should pay Rs.
51,000/- to the Gaon Panchayat, lest they would defame his
daughter. Respondent No. 2 was frightened and he was requesting
them to reconsider but the applicant's cousin Madhu told him that his
brother-in-law Jagan Dighya Gawit was a police at Shirpur and he
was informed about all the facts about his daughter. Respondent No.
2 was frightened by these threats and told them that he had already
paid Rs. 1,50,000/- and amount of Rs. 51,000/- be deducted from
the said amount for payment to Gaon Panchayat. Then he was told
that amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was already spent and he has nothing
to do with that amount. He should pay separately Rs. 51,000/-. Due
to fear, he immediately handed over Rs. 26,000/- which he had.
Thereafter, when his sister-in-law's husband - Dattu Chaudhari from
Kolhapur made inquiry with the applicant, the applicant told him that
he liked Vaishali too much. The applicant won confidence of
4 APPLN3657.2017
informant's sister-in-law's husband Dattu Chaudhari and told him
that Vaishali should be called at Kolhapur. Hence, Vaishali was sent
along with Dattu Chaudhari to Kolhapur. Applicant - Jaywant
promised to marry to Vaishali and roamed with her in Kolhapur.
Then they had gone to Vikramgadh Javhar where the applicant
accompanied them and the photographs were also taken. He also
gifted one Vivo mobile handset to Vaishali and promised to convince
his parents for his marriage with Vaishali. However, after 2-3 days,
Jaywant told him on phone that his brother-in-law Jagan Gawit had
proposed one girl from his relation for him and, therefore, he was
unable to marry to Vaishali as there was stiff resistance from his
parents to marry to Vaishali. Then respondent No. 2 demanded Rs.
1,76,000/- back, but the applicant and his relatives declined to
refund the said amount. Thus, the applicants and his relatives had
extorted Rs. 1,76,000/-.
4. On the basis of such FIR, crime was registered and was
investigated into.
5. The applicant seeks quashing of the FIR on the following
grounds.
(i) On bare reading of the FIR in true spirit, no offence is
disclosed. The FIR is frivolous and imaginary.
5 APPLN3657.2017
(ii) The FIR does not disclose the ingredients of Section 384
of the IPC.
(iii) No person was put in any fear nor there was any
dishonest inducement to deliver any property to the
applicant
(iv) The money paid for expenses of marriage cannot be
termed as extortion.
6. Respondent No. 2 filed affidavit dt. 08.09.2017 and
opposed the application. He claimed that the defence is scandalous.
There was threat to defame his daughter so as to extort the money.
He was threatened that if he would not pay Rs. 51,000/- to Gaon
Panchayat, his daughter would be defamed. The facts disclose
offence u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC.
7. Learned advocate Shri Bachate advanced arguments as per
the grounds raised in the application. Learned advocate Shri. J. R.
Shah for respondent No. 2 and Shri. M. M. Nerlikar, learned APP for
respondent No. 1/State, opposed the application. The investigating
Officer has produced the papers of investigation. Advocate Bachate
for the applicant informed us that the applicant is ready to refund the
entire amount of Rs. 1,76,000/- without prejudice to the defence
raised by him but, the complainant declined to agree for settlement
hence, the arguments were heard.
6 APPLN3657.2017
8. The point for consideration with our finding thereon are as
follows:
Sr. No. Point Finding
1 Whether the FIR deserves to be In the negative.
quashed.
9. The investigation revealed that, Vaishali did elope with one
person who has given a statement that he was her classmate and
knowing her for last 3 to 4 years. They were having love affair and at
the relevant time they had eloped at various places. They had also
gone to Kolhapur. As his father was known to vaishali's father, no
action was taken against him.
10. Vaishali stated that, the applicant met her at the house of
her maternal aunt at Kolhapur and promised her on 14.01.2017 that
he would marry her notwithstanding the resistance from his parents.
He also sought permission to allow him to take Vaishali with him for
roaming and they roamed at various places in Kolhapur. Her
maternal aunt's husband had provided clothes to the applicant.
Thereafter also the applicant was in contact with her and he called
her on 06.02.2016 at Vikramgadh. She along with her relatives met
applicant at Vikramgadh and photographs were also taken. He tried
7 APPLN3657.2017
to force himself upon her but she refused to have sex with him till
they would get married. She stated that he had openly demanded
physical sex relations with her and he had gifted one mobile set to
her. On his request, she had kept one bag of her articles in his room
at Vikramgadh as he had assured her that they were going to be
married. Later on, he has declined to marry on the ground that his
brother-in-law Jagan had proposed another girl for him. He had
threatened her that she should not come in his way, lest he would
not leave her alive. Vaishali has given a statement making additional
allegations. She stated that the applicant told her that he would
marry to her notwithstanding the resistance of his parents.
11. After considering the arguments of learned advocates and
going through the papers, we find that amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was
advanced by the informant voluntarily for the purpose of marriage.
But, when for whatever reason the marriage was broken, the
applicant and his relatives were bound to refund the amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- as it was paid as refundable advance for marital expenses.
It seems that, initially the applicant and his relatives were not ready
to refund the amount which amounted to offence u/s 406 of IPC of
criminal breach of trust. The wrongful retention of amount would
amount to offence u/s 406 of IPC, however, before this court the
8 APPLN3657.2017
applicant has unconditionally offered to refund the said amount.
12. As far as amount of Rs. 26,000/- is concerned, the material
on record discloses that it was a case of extortion. The informant was
threatened that if he would not pay the amount to Gaon Panchayat,
his daughter would be defamed and by such threat he was compelled
to pay an amount of Rs. 26,000/-. There is no right to any body of
panchas to collect any amount from the parties for settlement. If
there is such custom to charge huge penalty for settlement, it
amounts to extortion. Subsequent offer to refund the amount of
Rs.26,000/- would be a mitigating circumstance. The payment will
not nullify the offence committed by the applicant and his relatives.
We, therefore find that, in respect of amount of Rs. 26,000/-, prima
facie there is material to show the offence u/s 384 r/w 34 of IPC.
13. In the light of these facts, this is not a fit case for invoking
the powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR. Hence, the
application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Rule
is discharged.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
