Smt. Urmila W/O Rajkishor Gupta ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Ambazari, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2790 Bom

1/4                                                               42 apl 1348.19.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1348 OF 2019

                       Smt. Urmila w/o Rajkishor Gupta and others
                                           VS.
        State of Maharashtra through Police Station Ambazari, Nagpur and another

Office     Notes,   Office                       Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances,       court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
                             Shri Irfan M. Ghongade, Advocate for the applicants.
                             Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
                             Ms Aastha Sharma, Advocate h/f Shri P.R. Jaiswal, Advocate for
                             the non-applicant No.2.


                                         CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
                                                 AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 11.02.2021.

1. Heard.

2. The applicants have prayed that the First Information Report registered against them at the instance of the non-applicant No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 3(1)

(k), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 be quashed. By the order dated 20th December 2019, this Court while directing issuance of notice, to the non- applicant No.1, had directed that charge-sheet shall not

2/4 42 apl 1348.19.odt

be filed against the applicants in the matter without seeking leave of this Court.

3. Undisputedly, the marriage was solemnized between Ravi Gupta and the non-applicant No.2 on 29th July 2014, it being inter caste marriage, the non- applicant No.2 being a member of Scheduled Caste. The applicant No.1 is mother of Ravi Gupta, the applicant No. 2 is sister of Ravi Gupta and applicant No.3 is the brother- in-law of Ravi Gupta. According to the complaint made by the non-applicant No.2, the applicants alongwith Ravi Gupta harassed the non-applicant No.2 physically and mentally and also demanded Rs.40 Lacs. Further complaint of the non-applicant No.2 is that the applicants used to insult the non-applicant No.2 abusing her in the name of her caste.

4. The registration of the First Information Report is challenged by the applicants on the ground that the applicants are not named by the non-applicant No.2 in the report lodged by her. The applicants further contended that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(k), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not fulfilled and therefore, registration of the First Information Report for those offences is unsustainable. It is further contended by the applicants that the instances referred by the non-

3/4 42 apl 1348.19.odt

applicant No.2 in her report are of 2013 and 2014 and the report is lodged on 1st November 2019 and this itself shows falsity in the claim of the non-applicant No.2 viz-a- viz the applicants. Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out the statement of Dr. Mousami Joshi and submitted that the claim of the non-applicant No.2 in the complaint lodged by her that she was forced by the applicants to undergo abortion against her wishes is falsified. It is further argued by learned Advocate for the applicants that the claim of the non-applicant No.2 is that all the three accused used to demand Rs.35 Lacs to 45 Lacs from the non-applicant No.2 is also improbable as it cannot be accepted that the three applicants made the same demand from the non-applicant No.2. To support the argument, learned Advocate for the applicants relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs State Of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and prayed that the First Information Report registered against the applicants be quashed.

5. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2-informant have taken us through the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2. It is urged that the averments in the report, prima-facie make out the offences registered against the applicants. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has relied on the judgment given in the case of Mohd. Allaudddin Khan vs.

4/4 42 apl 1348.19.odt

State of Bihar reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107.

6. After going through the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2-informant and the statement of Dr. Mousami Joshi on which the applicants relied, we are of the view that prima-facie, a case for registration of the First Information Report against the applicants exists. It is well settled that while considering the prayer of the accused for quashing the First Information Report exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to ascertain whether prima-facie case for prosecution of the accused exists or not, and the test is not whether the prosecution would result in conviction of the accused. On examining the matter from this angle, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. In view of the above, the Criminal Application is dismissed.

                                          JUDGE                                JUDGE
Manisha