Shivmala W/O. Gangadhar Talware ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 142 Bom

                                   {1}                CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4060 OF 2019

 1)       Shivmala W/o. Gangadhar Talware
          Age: 55 years, Occu.: Household,
          R/o. Gaikwad Galli, Mukhed,
          Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded.

 2)       Mangalbai w/o Gangadhar @ Vijay Gawale
          Age: 44 years, Occu.: Household.

 3)       Gangadhar @ Vijay s/o. Ramchandra Gawale
          Age: 48 years, Occu.: Private job
          Both R/o. Plot No.A-30 - Shri Balaji Sakshi,
          Flat No.301, at Diwale, Post.Konkanbhavan,
          Near Khanna Hospital, Sector 14-CBD,
          Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Thane.

 4)       Sandhyatai w/o Hari Gaikwad
          Age: 30 years, Occu. Primary Teacher,
          R/o. Taroda (Kh.), Tq. & Dist.Nanded.

 5)       Shital w/o. Nilesh Landge
          Age: 24 years, Occu. Household

 6)       Nilesh s/o. Bhausaheb Landge
          Age: 27 years, Occu. Private Job,
          5 & 6 R/o. 34, Pirangut Kumbharwada,
          Pirangut Mulshi, Tq.Mulshi,
          Dist.Pune.

 7)       Sheshrao s/o. Madhavrao Jambhalikar
          Age: 58 years, Occu.: Labour,
          R/o. Vasanti Raut Chawl,
          Kasarvadavali, Thane West,
          Tq. & Dist. Thane.                                   ..Applicants

                                 VERSUS

 1)       The State of Maharashtra
          Through: Police Station Nanded Rural
          Tq. & Dist.Nanded.




::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2021 18:58:16 :::
                                    {2}               CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019


 2)       Santoshi w/o Deepsagar Talware
          Age: 25 years, Occu.: Private Service,
          R/o. C/o. Tukaram Khandu Gaulkar,
          N.D.-42, D-3/4 in front of
          Naik College, CIDCO Nanded,
          at present R/o. C-5/35/3-4,
          Sector-5 CBD, Belapur Navi Mumbai,
          Tq. & Dist.Thane.                         ..Respondents
                                                (Orig. Complainant)
          ALKEM Laboratory (R&D)
          C-6/1, C-6/2, C-17/7,
          Dist. Industrial Estate, Taloja,
          Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
          410 208.
          (Additional address added vide
          amendment carried out as per
          Court's Order dated 11-12-2011.)

                                   ...
         Advocate for Applicants : Shri Govind G.Suryawanshi
             APP for Respondent No.1 : Shri M.M.Nerlikar
       Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri Shrinivas H. Panchal
                                   ...

                                  CORAM :     T.V.NALAWADE &
                                              M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE: 5th January, 2021

JUDGMENT:- (Per: M.G.Sewlikar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of both the sides, heard fnally at the admission

stage.

3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.546 of 2019 under

{3} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, registered with Police Station Nanded (Rural), and

the charge-sheet fled on the basis of the FIR.

4. Facts leading to this application are that, respondent No.2 -

informant married Deepsagar Gangadhar Talware on 31-12-2018.

Applicant No.1 is the mother in law of respondent No.2. Applicant

No.2 is the maternal aunt of the husband of respondent No.2.

Applicant No.3 is the maternal uncle of the husband of

respondent No.2. Applicant Nos.4 and 5 are the married sisters

of the husband of respondent No.2. Applicant No.6 is the

husband of applicant No.5. Applicant No.7 is the brother in law

of the husband of respondent No.2.

5. Respondent No.2 has alleged in the FIR that she was

maintained well by the applicants for a period of 15 days after

marriage. Thereafter, her husband showed her a photograph of

his girlfriend and said that the girlfriend was better in looks than

respondent No.2. Her husband used to say that he has married

respondent No.2 for the sake of the society. When her parents

brought the behaviour of her husband to the notice of

applicant No.1, father in law of respondent No.2 and other

relatives, instead of admonishing the husband, the applicants

{4} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

abused and threatened the parents of respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2's husband used to beat her and used to say

that she should bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents, if she

wants to live separately. Applicant No.5 and her husband used to

abuse her whenever they come to respondent No.2's

matrimonial place. The applicant No.1, respondent No.2's

husband and respondent No.2's father in law used to beat her

frequently. She communicated their ill-treatment to her parents.

Therefore, on 24-09-2019, respondent No.2 was driven out of the

house after taking of 10 Tolas Gold from her person. On 03-10-

2019 at 4:00 p.m. when she was at her maternal home, her

husband Deepsagar, her father in law Gangadhar Talware,

applicant No.1 - Shivmala Talware (mother in law), her step

mother in law - Laxmi Talware, applicant No.2 - Mangalbai

Gawale, applicant No.3 - Gangadhar Gawale (maternal uncle),

applicant No.4 - Sandhyatai Gaikwad (sister in law), applicant

No.5 - Shital Landge (sister in law), applicant No.7 - Sheshrao

Jambhalikar (brother in law of the husband of respondent No.2)

and applicant No.6 - Nilesh Landge went to her maternal place

and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and manhandled her parents and

abused them. On these allegations, FIR was lodged on 06-11-

2019, on the basis of which Crime No.546 of 2019 for the ofence

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with

{5} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered at

Police Station Nanded (Rural), Nanded.

6. Heard Shri Govind G.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the

applicants, Shri M.M.Nerlikar, learned APP for respondent No.1

and Shri S.H.Panchal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7 When this Court expressed its disinclination to grant any

relief to applicant No.1, Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the

applicants, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the

application to the extent of applicant No.1. Accordingly,

permission was accorded.

8. On perusal of the FIR, it is seen that vague and general

allegations are made against the applicants by respondent No.2.

No specifc allegations are made by giving dates. No specifc

overt act is attributed to any of the applicant Nos.2 to 7.

Therefore, on the basis of these vague and general allegations, it

cannot be said that any cognizable ofence is made out against

the applicant Nos.2 to 7.

9. Shri Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the applicants

argued that the applicant Nos.2 to 7 are living separately from

{6} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

respondent No.2 and the husband of respondent No.2.

10. Applicants have produced Aadhar Card of applicant No.2,

which shows that applicant No.2 - Mangalbai Gawale is residing

at Diwale, Post-Konkan Bhavan, Near Khanna Hospital, Sector 14,

CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, Thane. Applicant No.3 - Gangadhar

Gawale is also residing there at CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai,

Thane. Aadhar Card of applicant No.4 - Sandhyatai Gaikwad

shows that she is residing at Taroda Bk., Nanded. Aadhar Card of

applicant No.5 - Shital Landge shows that she is resident of

Pirangut, Kumbharwada, Tq.Mulshi, Dist.Pune. Aadhar Card of

applicant No.6 - Nilesh Landge shows that he is also resident of

Pirangut Kumbharwada, Pune. Aadhar Card of applicant No.7 -

Sheshrao Jambhalikar shows that he is resident of Kasarvadavali,

Thane West, Thane. This clearly shows that applicant Nos.2 to 7

are living separately from applicant No.1, respondent No.2 and

the husband of respondent No.2.

11. Shri Panchal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued

that specifc allegations are made against all the applicants. He

argued that respondent No.2 has given dates of ill-treatment as

24-09-2019 and 03-10-2019. On 24-09-2019, the applicants

abused parents of respondent No.2 and on 03-10-2019, the

{7} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

applicants had been to the maternal place of respondent No.2

and manhandled respondent No.2 and her parents. He placed

reliance on the case of Mahavir Prashad Gupta and Another Vs.

State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Others [(2000)

8 Supreme Court Cases 115] for the proposition that the power

of quashing of criminal proceedings must be exercised very

sparingly with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare case,

one such case was when the complaint itself does not disclose

any ofence. He also placed reliance on the case of Rajeev

Kourav Vs. Baisahab and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.232 of

2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No.1174 of 2017) for the

proposition that in the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, statements under Section 161 of the Indian

Penal Code cannot be taken into consideration being wholly

inadmissible in evidence.

12. As stated earlier, vague allegations are made against the

applicants. Merely giving dates is not sufcient. Specifc overt

act has to be attributed to the applicants. On the basis of vague

and general allegations, no cognizable ofence can be said to be

disclosed against the applicants. It is vaguely stated in the FIR

that the applicants abused and manhandled the parents of

respondent No.2. In such circumstances, if prosecution is

permitted to be continued against applicant Nos.2 to 7, it would

{8} CRI.APPLN.4060 OF 2019

be an abuse of process of law. Even if all the allegations against

applicant Nos.2 to 7 are accepted at their face value, no

cognizable ofence can be said to be made out against applicant

Nos.2 to 7. Therefore, the case of the applicant Nos.2 to 7 is

squarely covered by the conditions 1 and 3 as 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 ] .

13. For the foregoing reasons, continuation of prosecution

against applicant Nos.2 to 7 would be an abuse of process of law.

Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

I) Application of applicant No.1 is disposed of as withdrawn,

II) Application of applicant Nos.2 to 7 is allowed. Relief is granted to them in terms of Prayer Clause (B-1).

     III)     Rule made absolute in those terms.




            ( M.G.SEWLIKAR )                    ( T.V.NALAWADE )
                 JUDGE                                JUDGE


 SPT