Bombay High Court
Pankaj Dhanraj Kadu vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 677 OF 2020
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 789 OF 2020
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 677 OF 2020
1. Dhanraj Baliramji Kadu,
Age 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Ashok Nagar, Tq. Dhamangaon Rly.,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Nikhil Dhanraj Kadu,
Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Ashok Nagar, Tq. Dhamangaon Rly.,
Dist. Amravati.
3. Jayshree Rajendra Wankhede,
Age 40 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Jalka Patache,
Tq. Dhamangaon Rly., Dist. Amravati.
4. Jaya Sunil Chikate,
Age 36 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Malapur, Tq. Babhulgaon,Dist. Yavatmal.
. . . APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S. Kurha, Tq. Tiosa,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Mayur Diliprao Gawande,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pandhari, Tq. Nerparsopanth,
Dist. Amravati. ... NON-APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2021 03:54:04 :::
2 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 789 OF 2020
Pankaj Dhanraj Kadu,
Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Ashok Nagar, Tq. Dhamangaon Rly.,
Dist. Amravati. . . . APPLICANT
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S. Kurha, Tq. Tiosa,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Mayur Diliprao Gawande,
Aged 25 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pandhari, Tq. Nerparsopanth,
Dist. Amravati. . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Nilesh A. Gawande, Advocate for applicant/s in both the
applicants.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.P. P. for non-applicant no. 1/State in both the
applications.
Shri Anil A. Dhawas, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2 in both the
applications.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 09.04.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the husband and in-laws of the victim have
challenged the registration of First Information Report (FIR) No.
3 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
124/2020 against them with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for
the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with
accusations that marriage of the sister of the informant took place with
the applicant in Cri. Application No. 789/2020. It is alleged that the
applicants demanded an amount of ₹ 2 lakhs towards dowry, else the 2 lakhs towards dowry, else the
victim was threatened with consequence of divorce. It is alleged that
the victim was harassed by the applicants for refusing to pay dowry.
Therefore the victim left her matrimonial home. It was alleged that on
26.07.2020, the applicants assured the victim and her relatives that
they will provide good treatment to the victim and took her to
matrimonial home. It is alleged that on 01.08.2020, the husband of
the victim called the relative of the victim and informed that the victim
became unconscious. On visit by relatives of victim , it was found that
victim had died due to hanging. The FIR was lodged by the brother of
the victim alleging commission of murder of the victim.
5. The applicants have therefore filed the present applications
challenging registration of the FIR. Cri. Application (APL) No.
789/2020 is filed by the husband of the victim. Cri. Application (APL)
No. 677/2020 is filed by the in-laws of the victim. This Court on
21.10.2020 and 11.12.2020 issued notice to the non-applicants. In
4 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
pursuance of the notice of this Court, the respondent no. 1 has filed its
reply stating that the applicants have physically and mentally harassed
the victim. It is stated that accused no. 4 and 5 used to instigate
accused no. 1 (husband) to perform second marriage and to remove
the victim from the life of accused no. 1-husband. This fact was
informed by the victim to her parents. On 01.08.2020, the parents of
the deceased were informed that their daughter had become
unconscious. Upon receiving the said information, the parents of the
victim reached there and found the victim hanging. The parents of
the victim have expressed apprehension that the applicants in both the
Criminal Applications have committed murder of the victim. The non-
applicant no. 1 has recorded statement of various witnesses, which
show that there is demand of dowry by the applicants and therefore
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were added
against the applicants. It is stated that there is sufficient material to
implicate the applicants in the crime registered against them.
6. The non-applicant no. 2 has also filed reply and has stated
that in view of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there is
presumption that her husband and in-laws have subjected the victim to
cruelty as undisputedly the death took place within 7 years of the
marriage. It is submitted that the allegations in the report are
sufficient to constitute offence alleged against the applicants. It is
5 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
submitted that considering the torture suffered by the victim,
possibility of committing her murder is not ruled out and therefore, it
is not a case to quash the proceedings at its threshold.
7. On careful perusal of the material placed before us makes
out prima facie case against the applicants and it requires to be
decided by conducting proper trial. At this stage, we cannot analyze
and meticulously consider the evidence and anticipate whether it will
end up in conviction or acquittal. This is not a case to decide whether
there is any truth in the allegations made out but, to form an opinion
whether on the basis of allegations cognizable offence as alleged have
been prima facie made out or not. The guilt or otherwise of the
accused can be proved only after conducting a full fledge trial.
8. In the circumstances, it is not proper for us to interfere with
proceeding and quash the FIR. We, therefore, cannot persuade
ourselves to hold that continuance of proceeding would result in abuse
of process of Court.
9. The non-applicant no. 1 has filed reply stating that charge-
sheet is ready. The non-applicant no. 1 shall take steps in that regard
within a period of four weeks from today. The applicants are at liberty
to adopt appropriate proceedings in case the charge-sheet is filed.
6 25-apl-677-789-20j.odt
10. Therefore, we find no merits in the applications and same
are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
