Shankar S/O. Upasrao Bhongeakar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1021 Bom

                                 1                        apl328.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.328 OF 2017



  1. Shankar s/o. Upasrao Bhongekar,
      Aged 65 years, Occ. Retired.

  2. Sou. Asha w/o. Shankar Bhongekar,
      Aged 59 years, Occ. Household.

      Both r/o. Plot No.24, Sarvashiri Nagar,
      Umred Road, Nagpur - 34.           ..........      APPLICANTS



          // VERSUS //


  1.State of Maharashtra,
     Through P.S.O., Amgao, Distt.
     Gondia (Under Crime No.
     126/2016).

  2. Lokchand s/o. Gajanan Barai,
      Aged 55 years, Occ. Service, 
      r/o. Ward No.5, Risaya, Tq.


::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:30:56 :::
                                      2                                 apl328.17.odt


      Amgao, Distt. Gondia.                  ..........       RESPONDENTS
  ____________________________________________________________  
               Mr.Lubesh Meshram, Advocate for the Applicants.
               Mr.K.R.Lule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
                         None for Respondent No.2.
   ____________________________________________________________



                                               CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                                    AND
                                                                    M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 25th January, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. The applicants have moved the present application with

a prayer to quash and set aside First Information Report No.126 of

2016 registered in Police Station, Amgaon, District Gondia on the

complaint of non-applicant no.2 Lokchand s/o. Gajanan Barai. It is

submitted that marriage of the son of applicants namely Pradip was

settled with the daughter of complainant. It is alleged by the non-

applicant no.2 in his complaint that Pradip demanded an amount of

3 apl328.17.odt

Rs.90,000/- to be transferred in his bank account. Pradip was always

talking with the daughter of the complainant. He was threatening

her that if sufficient dowry is not given then he will break the

marriage etc. On 7.11.2016, Pradip talked with the proposed

bride/daughter of the complainant. Due to mental pressure, she has

committed suicide.

2. It is alleged in the report that the applicants along with

son Pradip with a common intention demanded dowry from time to

time and mentally harassed daughter of complainant. Therefore, they

abetted her to commit suicide.

3. On the report of the complainant, offences punishable

under Section 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are registered against both

the applicants and son Pradip.

4. We have heard learned Counsel Mr.Lubesh Meshram for

the applicants and learned A.P.P. Mr.K.R.Lule for the

respondent/State.

4 apl328.17.odt

5. From the perusal of the F.I.R., it is nowhere alleged

against both the applicants in respect of demand of dowry or any

conversation with the bride/deceased. All allegations about demand

of dowry and mental harassment of deceased etc. are against son of

both the applicants. It is specifically alleged against Pradip son of

applicants that he demanded dowry. He threatened deceased to

break marriage if sufficient dowry is not given to him. There is no

such allegations against both the applicants i.e. parents of Pradip.

6. From the perusal of report, prima facie there is no

whisper in respect of demand of dowry or any conversation by both

the applicants with the deceased. From the face of F.I.R., no offence

is made out against both the applicants. Hence, in view of the

Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC

335, State of Haryana .vs. Bhajan Lal, F.I.R. No.126 of 2016

registered against both the applicants for the offences punishable

under Sections 306 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is liable to be quashed

and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.

                                      5                                 apl328.17.odt




                                      // ORDER // 

The application is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (a) of the application.

We hereby quash and set side the F.I.R.

No.126 of 2016 against both the applicants,

registered by non-applicant no.1 on the report of

non-applicant no.2 for the offences punishable under

Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

No order as to costs.

                                      JUDGE                            JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                6               apl328.17.odt