Bombay High Court
Amol S/O. Jairam Talokar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 cr-apl-697-18j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 697 OF 2018
1. Amol S/o. Jairam Talokar,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business,
2. Jairam S/o. Kisan Talokar,
Aged about 72 years, Occ. Nil,
3. Sau. Nirmala W/o. Jairam Talokar,
Aged about 67 years, Occ. Household,
4. Sau. Anita W/o. Nilesh Pinjarkar,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Household,
All R/o. Plot No. 50, Charanamrut Society,
Holey Layout, Wadgaon, Yavatmal,
Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
5. Sau. Amruta W/o. Ashish Chinchmalatpure,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household,
6. Ashish S/o. Pradiprao Chinchmalatpure,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ. Service Private Sector,
No. 5 and 6 are R/o. Corporation Colony,
Prashant Nagar, Near Ajni Square,
Wardha Road, Nagpur.
At presently :
R/o. Baramati, Tah. Baramati, Dist. Pune.
. . . APPLICANTS
...V E R S U S..
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer,
Police Station Wadgaon Road,
Yavatmal, Tah. & Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 21/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 09:18:05 :::
2 cr-apl-697-18j.odt
2. Mrs. Swapna W/o. Amol Talokar,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Ramesh Mukundrao Mathane,
Shivarpan Colony, Rahatgaon Road,
Behind Deshmukh Lawn,
Near Navsari Naka, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati. . . NON-APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S. D. Sirpurkar, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
Shri S. D. Zoting, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 20.01.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Z. A. HAQ, J.) :-
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Crime No. 837/2018 is registered against the applicants for
the offences punishable under Section 489-A and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The First Information Report is registered on the report
lodged by the non-applicant no. 2. The applicant no. 1 is the husband
of the non-applicant no. 2, the applicant no. 2 is father-in-law of the
non-applicant no. 2, the applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the non-
applicant no. 2, the applicant nos. 4 and 5 are sisters of the applicant
no. 1 and the applicant no. 6 is husband of the applicant no. 5.
3 cr-apl-697-18j.odt
4. Admittedly, the marriage between the applicant no. 1 and
the non-applicant no. 2 was solemnized on 18.12.2016. According to
the applicants, the non-applicant no. 2 resided at the matrimonial
house till the document styled as "Agreement of Divorce by Mutual
Consent" came to be executed under the signatures of the applicant
no. 1 and the non-applicant no. 2 on 05.12.2017. The applicants
contend that after the execution of the document dated 05.12.2017,
the non-applicant no. 2 has not been residing at the matrimonial house
and which fact is not disputed by the non-applicant no. 2. The report
on the basis of which the First Information Report is registered, is
lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 on 01.12.2018 i.e. after almost
seven months of the execution of the document dated 05.12.2017.
5. With the assistance of learned Advocates for the applicants
and the non-applicant no. 2 and learned A.P.P., we have gone through
the complaint of the non-applicant no. 2 and the other material placed
on record.
6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the document dated
05.12.2017 has no legal sanctity as the divorce by mutual consent is
not permissible in the community to which the applicant no. 1 and the
non-applicant no. 2 belong. We are not required to examine the
legality of the document dated 05.12.2017 and we are referring to the
4 cr-apl-697-18j.odt
document only for collateral purpose and to appreciate the contentions
of the applicants that after execution of the said document, the non-
applicant no. 2 had not been residing at the matrimonial house. In the
complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2, the accusations against
the applicants are general and vague and do not contain the relevant
details like dates of the commission of the alleged acts and the places,
at which the alleged acts were committed.
7. We further find that the incidents alleged to have taken
place are old and prior to the execution of the document dated
05.12.2017. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
submitted that the non-applicant no. 2 was not permitted to leave the
matrimonial house and therefore, it was not possible for her to lodge
complaint till 05.12.2017 and when the non-applicant no. 2 came out
of the matrimonial house after execution of the document dated
05.12.2017, she immediately started making the complaints to the
Competent Authority. Though the copy of the complaints are not on
record, even if this contention is accepted, we are of the view that the
First Information Report could not have been registered on the basis of
the report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 on 01.07.2018. The non-
applicant no. 1 has also not pointed out that the concerned Police
Station had received any complaint of the non-applicant no. 2 before
the complaint dated 01.07.2018.
5 cr-apl-697-18j.odt
8. As we find that the accusations in the complaint are vague
and general and do not satisfy the ingredients necessary to constitute
the offences alleged against the applicants, and keeping in mind the
note of caution of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash
Chandra Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 551, we
find that this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Hence, the following order :-
Crime No. 837/2018 registered against the applicants with
the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station is quashed.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
