Bombay High Court
Sandip S/O. Govind Popalghat vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 23 August, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
36 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2020
SANDIP S/O. GOVIND POPALGHAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr Narayan B. Narwade
APP for Respondent No.1 - State : Mr Anand S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr A.T. Ghute h/f Mr V.B. Anjanwatikar
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 23rd AUGUST, 2021
PER COURT :
1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties at admission stage.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant/husband has filed this
application for quashing of the criminal proceeding vide RCC No.
224/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, Tal.
Shirpur, Dist. Dhule for the offence punishable under section 498A, 406,
323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC out of the FIR bearing crime
No. 252/2018 registered with Shirpur City Police Station, Shirpur, Dist.
Dhule.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the husband/
applicant is working at Zilla Parishad School at Patil Pada, Tq. Vikramgad,
Dist. Palghar and respondent No. 2 wife is in service at Municipal Council
2 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
School, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. They are working at two different places.
Respondent No. 2 was insisting the applicant-husband for getting
transferred at her place. However, the applicant allegedly was refusing for
the same. The learned counsel submits that thus, the relations became
strained on account of the said aspect as alleged in the complaint. The
learned counsel submits that though there are other allegations, however,
those hardly attract the provisions of section 498A of the IPC. The learned
counsel submits that this court (Coram : T.V. Nalawade and K.K.
Sonawane, JJ) by order dated 21.06.2019 in criminal application No.
5/2019, has quashed the FIR as against accused Nos. 2 to 16.
4. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are general in
nature. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceeding in the backdrop
of those allegations would be the abuse of the court process.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant submits that
the applicant/husband has refused to get himself transferred at the place
where respondent No. 2 was working or near to her place. Further,
respondent No. 2 had given birth in the month of July, 2015 to a female
child. It has been alleged in the complaint that even the applicant and his
family members were disappointed on account of the birth of a female
child. It has been specifically alleged in the complaint that respondent
No.2/informant was subjected to beating on various counts by the
applicant-husband. In the year 2016, respondent No. 2 and applicant-
husband have decided to purchase the plot and it was purchased for a
consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the name of the applicant. At the
3 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
instance of the applicant/husband, respondent No. 2 has availed the loan
from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/-. However, even thereafter,
the applicant/husband used to insist her to resign from the post and come
at the place where his parents are residing. It has been specifically alleged
that even in the year 2017, since respondent No. 2 has refused to resign
and leave her working place situated in Shirpur, the applicant/husband
had started suspecting about her character. He was causing physical and
mental harassment to respondent No. 2 by suspecting about her
character.
6. The learned counsel submits that even the applicant/husband
has refused further to co-habit with her and she is now residing with her
parents along with the girl child.
7. We have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State.
8. We have carefully gone through the allegations made in the
complaint, police papers, charge sheet and also perused the statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer. All the accused persons including
the applicant herein have filed criminal application bearing No. 5/2019 for
quashing of the FIR and this court (Coram : T.V. Nalawade and K.K.
Sonawane, JJ) in criminal application No. 5/2019 by order dated
21.06.2019 has partly allowed the said application and so far as the
present applicant is concerned, his application stands disposed of as
withdrawn.
4 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
9. It further appears that this Court has not granted any liberty to
the applicant to file an application for quashing of the proceedings after the
charge sheet. Though we have requested the learned counsel for the
applicant to take instructions as to whether the applicant is ready to file his
application for discharge before the trial court, the learned counsel on
instructions submitted before us that the court should pass the order.
10. On careful perusal of the complaint, we find that respondent No.
2/informant was not only subjected to ill-treatment on account of the
transfer from the work place, but she was also subjected to ill-treatment on
various counts by the applicant/husband. Firstly, she was subjected to
cruelty on the count that she is not ready to resign or leave her working
place. Secondly, respondent No. 2 has given birth to a female child and
thirdly, on account of the transaction in respect of the purchase of plot and
lastly, respondent No. 2 was also subjected to cruelty by suspecting about
her character.
11. Respondent No. 2 is presently staying with her parents along
with her small girl child.
12. In a case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Supreme Court in para
Nos. 14 and 15 has made the following observations :-
14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that
even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is
made out. There are allegations against Respondent No.2
and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced
5 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she
continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as
she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper
environment in the matrimonial home. The question
whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and
treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it
cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of
proceedings before the trial is not permissible.
15. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High
Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra, the parents of
the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died
and main allegations were only against him. This Court
found no cogent material against other accused. In Manoj
Mahavir, the appellant before this Court was the brother of
the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case
against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency
of earlier section 498-A IPC case. This Court found the
said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra, case was
against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had
taken place between the parties. The said cases neither
purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible
rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been
mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases
therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the
factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the
settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable
case against the accused.
13. It is, thus, clear that the parameters for quashing proceedings in
a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the court is
not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the
face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of the court's process,
6 36-CRI.APPLN-5-2020
quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. The reference of the same is made
in the cases of K. Ramkrishna and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
reported in (2000) 8 SCC 547, The Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr. Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 and
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in
AIR 1992 SC 604 and Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Anr. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 259.
14. In the instant case, we find the triable issue from the reading of
the complaint and also after going through the charge sheet, it cannot be
held that even if the allegations are taken as proved or admitted, no case
is made out. Thus, we find no substance in the present criminal
application, hence we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
The criminal application is hereby dismissed.
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ V.K. JADHAV, J. ]
mta
