Bombay High Court
Pushpak S/O. Chandmal Bafna And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 February, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
1 criappln3522.19 J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3522 OF 2019
1) Pushpak s/o Chandmal Bafna,
Age; 30 years, Occ; Private Service,
2) Chandmal Mishrilal Bafna,
Age; 61 years, Occ; Nil
3) Sau. Ranjana w/o Chandmal Bafna,
Age; 57 years, Occ; Household,
Applicants No. 1 to 3 all r/o. Swanandi
Apartment, Infront of Motiwala College,
Shivshakti Colony, Gangapur Road,
Nashik.
4) Pooja Vinod Duggad,
Age; 31 years, Occ; Private Service,
5) Vinodkumar s/o Sureshkumar Duggad,
Age; Major, Occ; Business,
Applicants No. 4 and 5 are r/o; Udimain Road,
Mithupalam, Dist. Coimbtore (Tamilnadu)
6) Prakash Shantilal Abbad,
Age; Major, Occ; Business,
7) Sanjay Shantilal Abbad,
Age; Major, Occ; Business,
Applicants No. 6 & 7 are
r/o; Abhona Tq. Kalwand, Dist Nashik.
8) Dhanashri Jitendra Pokharna,
Age; Major, Occ; Household,
9) Jitendra Deepchand Pokharna,
Age; Major, Occ; Business,
...Applicants
Both r/o. Near Hanuman temple,
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:39:13 :::
2 criappln3522.19 J
Moti Nagar, Latur.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Officer In-charge of
City Police Station, Dhule,
Dist. Dhule.
2) Ashwini w/o Pushpak Bafna, ..Respondents
Age; 29 years, Occ; Household, (Respondent No. 2
R/o; Moti Nagar, Sakri Road, Dhule, is Original
Tq. & Dist. Dhule. Complainant)
.................................................................................
Shri Balbhim R. Kedar, Advocate for the applicants
Shri G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1
Smt. S.S. Suvarna. h/f Shri N.L.Chaudhary, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 2
.................................................................................
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
Date :- 03/02/2021
JUDGMENT [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the First
Information Report, (F.I.R.) No. 307 of 2019, registered with City Police
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:39:13 :::
3 criappln3522.19 J
Station Dhule, Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
3. Facts giving rise to this application are that respondent No. 2
(the informant herein), wife of applicant No. 1, lodged an FIR alleging
therein that her marriage with applicant No. 1 was solemnized on
11.9.2016. It is alleged in the FIR that she had made aware to the
applicants that she is 'Mahar' by caste. The applicants are 'Marwadi' by
caste. Despite that, applicant No. 1 with consent of his parents married
respondent No. 2.
4. Applicant No. 2 is the father, applicant No. 3 is the mother and
applicant No. 4 is the sister of applicant No. 1. Applicant Nos. 5 is the
husband of applicant No. 4. Applicant No. 6 is the distant father-in-law of
respondent No. 2. Applicant No. 7 is the son of applicant No. 6. Applicant
No. 8 is the sister of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 9 is the husband of
applicant No. 8.
5. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicants maintained her well
for some days after marriage. Thereafter, applicant No. 3 and applicant
No. 4 did not allow her to enter kitchen because of the caste of respondent
No. 2. Applicant No. 3 used to say that she would prepare food for
applicant No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 should work like a maid. They
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:39:13 :::
4 criappln3522.19 J
started saying that she should bring Rs. 5,00,000/- from her parents only
then she would be allowed to stay in the family of 'Marwadies'.
6. It is further alleged that on 21.6.2017 she delivered a baby
girl. On that count applicant No. 3 said to respondent No. 2 that since she
had delivered a baby girl, she would be permitted in the house of
applicant No. 3 only after respondent No. 2 brought Rs. 5,00,000/- from
her parents. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2018 she was dropped
at her maternal place. She went back for co-habitation on 6.6.2018
through intervention of the Women Cell at Nashik. She cohabited with
applicant No. 1 till September, 2018. During this period, she realized that
applicant No. 1 had illicit relations with one Rupali. When she questioned
applicant No. 1, applicant No. 1 said that he had committed a mistake in
marrying a girl from 'Mahar' caste. He started beating her and other
applicants used to instigate him. She was driven out of house in the month
of January, 2019. Since then she has been staying with her mother. On
these allegations she lodged report on 07.08.2019 in City Police Station,
Dhule, District Dhule, on the basis of which, F.I.R. for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 506 read with Section 34 of the
I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (r)(s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act has
been registered against the applicants.
7. Heard Shri B.R. Kedar, the learned counsel for the applicants,
Shri G.O. Wattamwar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 and Smt. S.S.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:39:13 :::
5 criappln3522.19 J
Suvarna. h/f Shri N.L.Chaudhary learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. When this Court expressed its disinclination to grant any relief
to applicant Nos. 1 to 3, Shri Kedar, learned counsel for the applicants
sought permission to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant
Nos. 1 to 3. Permission was accordingly granted.
9. So far as applicant Nos. 4 to 9 are concerned vague allegations
are made against applicant Nos. 4 to 9. No details of ill-treatment are
furnished in the FIR. No specific act is attributed to any of the applicant
Nos. 4 to 9. It is vaguely alleged that applicant No. 4 did not allow her to
cook food. It is vaguely alleged that she was subjected to ill-treatment by
applicant Nos. 4 to 9 by making unlawful demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and
consequent ill-treatment on account of its non fulfillment. On perusal of
FIR it appears that entire allegations of ill-treatment are against applicant
Nos. 1 to 3. In this view of the matter, no cognizable offence can be said
to be made out against applicant Nos. 4 to 9. Even if allegations are
taken at their face value to be correct, no conviction is possible against
applicant Nos. 4 to 9 in terms of parameters laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Ors. V/s. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and Ors; AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604". In this view of
the matter if prosecution is allowed to be continued against applicant Nos.
4 to 9 it would be nothing but an exercise in futility.
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:39:13 :::
6 criappln3522.19 J
10. In view of this, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence is
made out against applicant Nos. 4 to 9. Therefore, continuation of
prosecution against them would be an abuse of process of law. Hence we
are inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicant Nos. 4 to 9.
In view of this following order is passed :
ORDER
1) Criminal Application of applicant Nos. 1 to 3 is
disposed of as withdrawn.
2) Criminal Application of applicants No. 4 to 9 is
allowed.
3) Relief is granted in favour of applicant No. 4 to 9
in terms of prayer clause "B".
4) Rule is made absolute in those terms.
( M.G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE )
JUDGE JUDGE
mahajansb/
