Shyamnarayan Gourishankar ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3346 Bom

                                              1                               20-apl-151-15j.odt

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

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 151 OF 2015

  1. Shyamnarayan Gourishankar Mishra,
     Aged 72 years, Occ. Business,
     R/o. Central Avenue, Nagpur.

  2. Hemantkumar Shyamnarayan Mishra,
     Aged 44 years, Occ. Nil,
     R/o. Central Avenue, Nagpur.

  3. Ku. Jaya D/o. Shyamnarayan Mishra,
     Aged 42 years, Occ. Lawyer,
     R/o. Central Avenue, Nagpur.

  4. Ku. Sunita D/o. Shyamnarayan Mishra,
     Aged 30 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Mumbai.

  5. Bhanu W/o. Anand Awashti,
     Aged 40 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. Anant Nagar, Nagpur.                                          . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     its Police Station Officer,
     Police Station Ganeshpeth, Nagpur
     Tq. And Distt. Nagpur.

  2. Smt. Neeta W/o. Hemant Mishra,
     Aged Major, R/o. C/o. Rajesh Mishra,
     Gayatri Sadi Centre, Yashoda Nagar,
     By-pass Road, Amravati,
     Tq. And Distt. Amravati.                                     . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rahul S. Kurekar, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri S. P. Deshpande, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Mrs. Sonali Saware-Gadhawe, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant
 no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2021                               ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 14:20:07 :::
                                           2                         20-apl-151-15j.odt

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

DATED :- 23.02.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged the registration of

First Information Report (FIR) against them with the non-applicant no.

1-Police Station vide Crime No. 155/2014, dated 02.08.2014 for the

offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. The applicants have challenged the registration of the FIR

by filing the present application.

2. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

the accusations that marriage between the non-applicant no. 2 and the

applicant no. 2 was performed on 18.04.2012. It is alleged that in the

year 2012 and 2013, the applicants treated the non-applicant no. 2

with cruelty.

3. This Court on 04.03.2015 issued notice to the non-

applicants and in the meantime, it was directed that no coercive steps

shall be taken against the applicants. This Court on 16.07.2015

admitted the present application and continued the interim order

granted earlier.

3 20-apl-151-15j.odt

4. The non-applicant no. 1, in pursuance of notice has filed

reply and has stated that statement of the witnesses are recorded by

the Investigating Agency and charge-sheet came to be prepared against

the present applicants. The non-applicant no. 2 is served with the

notice of the present application. Ms. Sonali Saware-Gadhawe,

learned Advocate was appointed to represent the non-applicant no. 2.

Ms. Sonali Saware-Gadhawe, learned Advocate (appointed) for the

non-applicant no. 2, on instructions from the non-applicant no. 2,

states that the non-applicant no. 2 had informed her that she is not

interested in proceeding with the complaint against the applicants. She

further stated that thereafter, there is no communication from the non-

applicant no. 2, inspite of the letter issued to her.

5. Shri Rahul S. Kurekar, learned Advocate for the applicants

stated that the applicant no. 2 (husband of the non-applicant no. 2)

has expired on 05.07.2020. With the result, the applicants, who are

father and the sisters of the applicant no. 2, are challenging the FIR.

6. For adjudicating the issue involved effectively, it is

necessary to consider Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which

reads as under:-

"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.

4 20-apl-151-15j.odt

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 women 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."

Cruelty, as defined in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code, must meet the following requirements:-

 (i)            There should be harassment of the woman;

 (ii)           Harassment should be with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property

or valuable security; and

(iii) Harassment may be even where there is failure by woman

or any person related to her to meet any such demand earlier made.

7. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and

omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the

husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully

scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really

constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least

prima facie.

5 20-apl-151-15j.odt

8. In G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others

reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be resorted to

as shortcut to settle the score. Before issuing process, the Criminal

Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused, it is a

serious matter. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the

Court or otherwise secure ends of justice.

In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. &

others reported in (2006) 7 SCALE 286, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

deprecated the tendency of using the criminal justice system as a tool

of arm twisting and to settle the score and, laid down that the High

Court can intervene where the criminal justice system is used as a tool.

The Apex Court in the judgment of Kailash Chandra

Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 551

has made observations that tendency, which has been developed for

roping in all relations of the in-laws by the wife in the matter of dowry

deaths or such type of similar offences in an over enthusiasm and

anxiety to seek conviction needs to be deprecated. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana reported in

(2018) 14 SCC 452 observed that relatives of the husband should not

6 20-apl-151-15j.odt

be roped in on the basis of vague allegations unless specific instances

of their involvement are set out.

9. It is true that while considering quashing of criminal

proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the truthfulness of the

allegations made by the complainant but, when the filing of FIR

amounts to gross misuse of the criminal justice system, it becomes the

duty of the High Court to intervene in such cases under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure so that there is no miscarriage of

justice and faith of people in the judicial system remains intact. In the

present case, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law have been arraigned as

accused without there being specific allegations as regards the nature

of cruelty, as contemplated by Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code

against them.

10. We have scrutinized the contents of the FIR by taking into

consideration the fact that the husband of the non-applicant no. 2 has

expired. From the FIR it appears that there are no specific allegations

against the applicant no. 1 and the applicant nos. 3 and 4.

11. In view of the observations of the Apex Court, we are of the

view that from the allegations against the applicant no. 1 and applicant

7 20-apl-151-15j.odt

nos. 3 to 5, who are father and sisters of the applicant no. 2 (deceased

husband of the non-applicant no. 2), the ingredients of the offence

alleged against the applicants are not fulfilled. Therefore, continuation

of proceeding against the applicant no. 1 and applicant nos. 3 to 5

would amount to abuse of process of Court .

12. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

The First Information Report No. 155/2014, dated

02.08.2014 registered against the applicants with the non-applicant

no.1- Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                             JUDGE                                           JUDGE




RR Jaiswal