Bombay High Court
Ramakant S/O Suryabhan Dhundale ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 26 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
2602 APL 286.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 286 OF 2015
1] Ramakant S/o Surybhan Dhundale,
Age : 64 years, Occ :Agriculture,
R/o Yesh Medical D.P. road Chikhali,
Tq. Chikhali Dist. Buldhana
2] Sau.Shindubai W/o Ramakant
Dhundale,
Age : 60 years, Occ :Household,
R/o as above.
3] Vijayshree W/o Milind Hemke
Age : 35 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Sr.No.1, Plot No.SDC 6,
Flat No.302,
Shubh Complex Apartment
Indrayani Nagar,
Bhosari, Pune.
4] Milind S/o Wamanrao Hemke
Age : 37 years, Occu : Service,
R/o as above.
5] Sharda W/o Nivruti Munhe
Age : 32 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o Beed Dist. Beed
At present Pimpri Chinchwad,
Municipal Corporation,
Yeshwanatrao Smuti Hospital
Quarter's Pune.
6] Vishal S/o Ramakant Dhundale,
Age : 30 years, Occu :Agriculture,
R/o Yesh Medical D.P.road Chikhali,
Tq. Chikhali Dist. Buldhana
7] Vishwas S/o Suryabhan Dhundale,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Chikhali,
Tq. Chikhali, Dist.Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 02:06:12 :::
2602 APL 286.15 2
Ward no.2, Gandhi Nagar,H.No.271,
Chikhali, Tq.Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.
8] Ashabai w/o Vishwas Dhundale
Age 55 years, Occu. Househwife,
R/o Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali,
Dist.Buldhana.Ward no.2,
Gandhi Nagar,H.No.271,
Chikhali, Tq.Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.
9] Vaibhav S/o Vishwas Dhundale
Age 29 years, Occu. Service,
R./o As above.
At Present Residing at Goa for
Service purpose.
Ward no.2, Gandhi Nagar,H.No.271,
Chikhali, Tq.Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana
10. Gaurav S/o Vishwas Dhundale
Age 24 years, Occu :Education
R/o As above, At present residing
Ward no.2, Gandhi Nagar,H.No.271,
Chikhali, Tq.Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana
11. Vishali D/o VishwasDhundale
Age 25 years, Occ. Education,
Ward no.2, Gandhi Nagar,H.No.271,
Chikhali, Tq.Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana
R/o As above. At present residing at
Pune for Education
12. Ambadas S/o Balwanta Kapase,
Age : 70 years, Occu : Retired
R/o Sunderkhed Tq. Dist. Buldhana.
Vaijinath Nagar, Chikhli Road,
Buldhana, Tq. Dist.Buldhana . . APPLICANTS
.V E R S U S..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Though Chikhali Police Station,
::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2021 02:06:12 :::
2602 APL 286.15 3
Tq.Chikhali Dist Buldhana.
Copy to be served on G.P. Office,
High Building, Nagpur.
2. Sonal W/o Pavan Dhundale
Age : 29 years, Occ. Housewife
R/o C/o Narayanrao Kale
At Shelsur, Tq. Chikhali
Dist. Buldhana. . . NON-APPLICANTS
...................................................................................................
Shri K.A. Ingle, Advocate for the applicant (Absent).
Shri H.D. Futane, Advocate for respondent no.2 (Absent).
Shri T.A.Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED: 26-02.2021
JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants, who are relatives of
husband of the non-applicant no.2 are roped in as accused in First
Information Report No.77/2014 for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and consequent Charge-sheet No.144/2014 filed on 7.7.2014
with the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikhali.
2. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants in
connivance with each other physically and mentally harassed the
non-applicant no.2 as she refused to transfer two acres of
agricultural land in the name of the applicants and refused to pay
an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards construction of house. It is
alleged that the marriage between the non-applicant no.2 and her
husband took place on 15.4.2009. It is alleged that the applicants
demanded various amounts from the non-applicant no.2 for
purchase of plot.
3. The Charge-sheet came to be filed against the
applicants on 7.7.2014 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chikhali. The applicants have, therefore, challenged
registration of the First Information Report and filing of the charge-
sheet against them. This Court, on 01.07.2015 issued notice to the
non-applicants and on 17.10.2015 issued Rule and continued
interim relief qua present applicants.
4. The non-applicant no.1 has filed reply and stated that the
husband and father-in-law of the non-applicant no.2 caused
ill-treatment to her for non-payment of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing
of motorcycle and also demanded an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for
purchase of plot. On refusal, the non-applicant no.2 was ill-treated
and beaten by the applicants. It is stated that since charge-sheet is
filed the applicants have alternative remedy of filing of discharge
application. The non-applicant no.2 has not filed reply.
5. The Advocates for both the parties were absent when the
matter was called in the first session. The matter was therefore,
kept in the afternoon session and is again called at 4.00 p.m. but
neither the Advocate for the applicant and Advocate for the non-
applicant no.2 are present. Since the application is of the year
2015, we are proceeding to decide the application on merits.
6. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
Information Report and the statements of the witnesses in the
charge-sheet. On perusal of the First Information Report, it appears
that the allegations against the applicants, most of whom, are
distant relatives of the husband and are residing at different places,
omnimous allegations are made against them.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chandra
Agrawal Vs. State of U.P.and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 551
has observed that tendency, which has been developed for roping in
all relatives of the husband 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. Sate of Telangana
reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452, has observed that relatives of the
husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague allegations
unless specific instances of their involvements are set out.
8. The parameters of exercise of power conferred on this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being settled,
in order to prevent abuse of process of any Court and secure the
ends of justice, this power can be exercised, then there is no doubt
in our mind that this is the case where this power needs to be
exercised.
9. On overall consideration of the evidence and
circumstances of the present case and in the light of the above
judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Kailash Chandra
Agrawal (supra) and K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana (supra),
we are satisfied that continuance of present proceedings against
the applicants would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence,
we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application (APL) No.286/2015 is allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.77/2014 dated 29.3.2014 and the Charge-
sheet bearing No.144/2014 dated 7.7.2014 filed with the Judicial
Magistrtate First Class, Court No.2 Chikhali and the proceedings of
Regular Criminal Case No.218/2014 pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikhali District Buldana for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code against the applicants are quashed and set
aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Ambulkar
