Bombay High Court
Bhim S/O Wasudeo Dhurve And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 15 January, 2018
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
1501APL621.16-Judgment 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 621 OF 2016
APPLICANTS :- 1) Bhim S/o Wasudeo Dhurve, Aged about 26
yrs., Occ. Service, Constable B.S.F.Ambor
Punjab Battalion,
R/o. Tekepar (Dodmazari), Tah. & District-
Bhandara.
2) Wasudeo S/o Domaji Dhurve, Aged about 58
yrs., Occu. Labour, R/o. Tekepar
(Dodmazari), Tah. & District- Bhandara.
3) Smt. Sitabai w/o Wasudeo Dhurve, Aged
about 45 yrs., Occu. Labour, R/o. Tekepar
(Dodmazari), Tah. & District- Bhandara.
4) Arjun S/o Wasudeo Dhurve, Aged about 29
yrs., Occu. Labour, R/o. Tekepar
(Dodmazari), Tah. & District- Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.,
P.S.Kardha, Tah. & Distt. Bhandara.
2) Sau. Priyanka Bhim Dhurve, Aged about 24
yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o C/o. Karuji Paiku
Kulmethe, Indira Nagar, Chandrapur, Tah. &
Distt. Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.A.Gupte, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.Shyam Bissa, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1.
Mr. S. G. Joshi, counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2018 01:55:50 :::
1501APL621.16-Judgment 2/7
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 15.01.2018
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-the husband
and the in-laws of the non-applicant No.2 have sought the quashing of
the first information report, the charge-sheet and the proceedings in
Criminal Case No.257 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bhandara for the offence punishable under section 498-A
read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
3. The applicant No.1 was married to the non-applicant No.2
on 07/05/2015 at Chandapur according to the customs prevailing in
their community. The applicant No.2 is the father of the applicant No.1
and the applicant No.3 is his mother. The applicant No.4 is the brother
of the applicant No.1. The applicants were residing together at the time
of marriage of the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2. Within a
couple of weeks from the solemnization of the marriage, the non-
1501APL621.16-Judgment 3/7
applicant No.2 left the matrimonial home and had returned to her
parental home. It is alleged in the first information report dated
10/08/2015, lodged by the non-applicant No.2 in the Indira Nagar
Police Station, Chandrapur that after the non-applicant No.2 started
residing in the matrimonial home, she was informed by the applicant
No.1 that he and his family members were followers of 'Parmatma
Dharma' and she should also follow the same. It is alleged in the first
information report that the non-applicant No.2 was threatened that in
case she does not follow the Parmatma Dharma, she would be ill-
treated, both mentally and physically. It is alleged in the report that on
27/05/2015 the father of the non-applicant No.2 came to the
matrimonial home to take her back to her parental home. After
returning to the parental home, the non-applicant No.2 had lodged the
first information report against the applicants on 10/08/2015.
4. It is stated on behalf of the applicants that even if the first
information report is accepted at its face value and the statements of
the non-applicant No.2 and her relatives are also considered, no offence
under section 498-A of the Penal Code could be made out. It is stated
that 'cruelty' as defined by the provisions of section 498-A of the Penal
Code cannot be said to have been meted out to the non-applicant No.2
on the basis of the allegations made by her in the first information
report. It is stated that every act of cruelty would not be 'cruelty' within
the meaning of the term in section 498-A of the Penal Code. It is stated
1501APL621.16-Judgment 4/7
that even assuming that the applicants had asked the respondent No.2
to follow the Parmatma Dharma and had threatened her that the
marriage between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2 would
be dissolved if she does not follow the same, the offence punishable
under section 498-A of the Penal Code could not have been registered.
5. Shri Shyam Bissa, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the non-applicant No.1, submitted that on
the basis of the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 and the
statements of the relatives of the non-applicant No.2, it could be said
that the non-applicant No.2 was treated by the applicants with cruelty.
It is submitted that it is apparent from the statements of the father and
the other relatives of the non-applicant No.2 that the applicants had
ill-treated her as she had not agreed to follow the Parmatma Dharma.
6. Shri Sumit Joshi, the learned counsel for the non-applicant
No.2, submitted that the charge-sheet is filed and this court may not
interfere at this stage. It is submitted that the non-applicant No.2 was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home within a couple of weeks
from the date of her marriage and the non-applicant No.2 was
threatened that she would be ill-treated both physically and mentally.
It is submitted that due to the said threats, the non-applicant No.2 had
lodged the report against the applicants. The learned counsel sought
for the dismissal of the criminal application.
1501APL621.16-Judgment 5/7
7. To consider whether the offence punishable under section
498-A of the Penal Code could have been registered against the
applicants, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of section
498-A. The provisions of section 498-A of the Penal Code read thus:-
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
It is apparent from the reading of the said provisions that
when the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects a
woman to cruelty, an offence under section 498-A of the Penal Code
could be made out against them. Explanation to section 498-A defines
1501APL621.16-Judgment 6/7
'cruelty'. It is apparent from the reading of the explanation to section
498-A of the Penal code that every act of cruelty would not fall within
the term 'cruelty' as defined in section 498-A of the Penal Code. For
making out an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Penal
Code, the husband or the relative of the husband of the woman so
willfully conduct, himself or herself, as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or the
health of the woman. Explanation (a) to section 498-A of the Penal
Code would not apply to this case. Even if the report of the non-
applicant No.2 is accepted at its face value, it cannot be said that the
acts on the part of the applicants are such, that they are likely to drive
the non-applicant No.2 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to the life, limb or health of the non-applicant No.2. It is
apparent from the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 that she was
asked by the applicants to follow the Parmatma Dharma and was
threatened that if she does not follow the same, the marriage between
the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2 would be dissolved. The
other allegations in the report is that the applicants had threatened the
non-applicant No.2 that she would be ill-treated physically and mentally
if she does not follow the Parmatma Dharma. Clause (b) of the
explanation to section 498-A would also not apply as the applicants had
not harassed the non-applicant No.2 with a view to coerce her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
1501APL621.16-Judgment 7/7
valuable security. It is not the case of the non-applicant No.2 in the first
information report that any of the applicants had coerced her or even
asked her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security. Even if the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2 in the
first information report are accepted at their face value, it cannot be
said that the applicants had treated the non-applicant No.2 with 'cruelty'
as defined by the provisions of section 498-A of the Penal Code. Since
the allegations made in the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2
could not have resulted in registration of the first information report
against the applicants under section 498-A read with section 34 of the
Penal Code, the first information report, the charge-sheet and the
criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.257 of 2015, pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara are liable to be quashed
and set aside.
8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application
is allowed. The first information report, the charge-sheet and Criminal
Case No.257 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhandara are hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
