Bandu S/O. Dinkar Kathare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1425 Bom

                               ..1..                     CrAppln.2001.2019


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2001 OF 2019

 1.      Bandu s/o Dinkar Kathare
         Age : 25 years, Occu : Business,
         R/o. Navi Galli, Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
         Dist. Latur

 2.      Dinkar s/o Karan Kathare
         Age : 48 years, Occu : Nil,
         R/o. Navi Galli, Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
         Dist. Latur

 3.      Jayshri w/o. Dinkar Kathare
         Age : 40 years, Occu : Household,
         R/o. Navi Galli, Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
         Dist. Latur

 4.      Sudamati w/o Karan Kathare
         Age : 62 years, Occu : Household,
         R/o. Navi Galli, Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
         Dist. Latur                                 .. Applicants

                  Versus

 1.      The State of Maharashtra
         Through Police Station, Gandhi Chowk,
         Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur

 2.      Sow Nandini w/o Bandu Kathare
         Age : 22 years, Occu : Household,
         R/o. Nandi Stop, Latur, Tq. Latur
         Dist. Latur                                 ... Respondents
                                    ....
              Mr M.L. Dharashive, Advocate for the Applicants
           Mr A.V. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1 / State
      Mr M.S. Shaikh, Advocate h/f. Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate
                           for Respondent No.2
                                    ...




::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 12:32:07 :::
                                  ..2..                        CrAppln.2001.2019


                                         CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
                                                        AND
                                                 B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.

DATED : 21-01-2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: B.U. DEBADWAR, J.) :-

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

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter in short 'CrPC') for quashing

of Charge-sheet No.26 of 2018 arising out of FIR No.3 of 2018 on the

basis of which case bearing R.C.C. No.29 of 2018 registered against

the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,

504 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short

'IPC') pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa,

Dist. Latur.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally for

final disposal.

3. Heard Mr M.L. Dharashive, learned Advocate for the

applicants, Mr A.V. Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent No.1 /

State and Mr M.S. Shaikh, learned Advocate h/f. Mr Sachin S.

Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

..3.. CrAppln.2001.2019

4. The applicants are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law

and grand mother-in-law of respondent no.2, respectively. Marriage

of applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 has been solemnized on

13-02-2013 as per the rites and customs prevailing in their

community. Agreed dowry of Rs.60,000/- was given to applicant no.1

at the time of marriage. After marriage, respondent no.2 went to her

matrimonial house situated at Navi Galli, Ausa and started cohabiting

with applicant no.1 - husband by residing in join family consisting of

all the applicants. Matrimonial life of respondent no.2 was normal

for about one year. During that period from the wedlock with

applicant no.1 respondent no.2 gave birth to a male child. After

naming ceremony of the child, applicant no.1 along with respondent

no.2 shifted to Latur for earning livelihood. He used to daily come

home in drunken state and harass respondent no.2 mentally and

physically. In the year 2015, applicant no.1 along with respondent

no.2 left the Latur and shifted to Bhimakoregaon, Pune and stayed

there for about six months. There also, applicant no.1 continued to

harass and ill-treat respondent no.2 whenever she used to demand

money for meeting household expenses. On one fine morning,

applicant no.1 sent respondent no.2 to his native place at Ausa along

with son. He told her that he would come to Ausa shortly. On her

reaching to Ausa, applicant nos.3 and 4 started insisting her to bring

..4.. CrAppln.2001.2019

Rs.Two Lakhs for opening hair salon for applicant no.1 at Ausa and

when respondent no.2 told them that her father's financial position is

not sound enough to give such huge amount, the applicants drove

her out with understanding that she will not be taken in the house

unless she fetches Rs.Two Lakhs. Since then she is residing at her

parental house. In spite of giving understanding by all the relatives,

the applicants did not allow respondent no.2 to come to their house.

As such, on 05-01-2018 respondent no.2 reached to Ausa Police

Station, Latur and lodged the report narrating aforesaid allegations.

On the basis of the said report, FIR bearing no.3 of 2018 for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of the IPC came to

be registered against all the applicants and after investigation, they

have been charge-sheeted before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa

for the said offences.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR and

Charge-sheet, the applicants have moved this application for

quashing the same.

6. While taking us through FIR, charge-sheet and papers

appended to the charge-sheet Mr M.L. Dharashive, Advocate

vehemently argued that, allegations made in the FIR and

..5.. CrAppln.2001.2019

charge-sheet are false and fabricated allegations. Marriage between

applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 took place on 13-02-2013. From

the wedlock, they blessed with two children. After the birth of

children, applicant no.1 along with respondent no.2 and their

children in the year 2015 went to Bhimakoregaon for earning

livelihood. After staying with applicant no.1 at Bhimakoregaon,

Dist. Pune for some time, respondent no.2 on her own without any

reason left the company of applicant no.1 and went to her parental

house at Latur with children. In spite of applicant no.1's calling her

back to Bhimakoregaon, respondent no.2 did not return. Since

respondent no.2 was not joining his company though requested time

and again, applicant no.1 left the job at Bhimakoregaon and returned

back to his native place Ausa, Dist. Latur. Even after applicant no.1's

coming back to native place at Ausa, respondent no.2 did not resume

cohabitation with him. When applicant no.1 realized that respondent

no.2 is not returning back to his house and resuming cohabitation

though requested time and again, on 18-04-2017 he rushed to the

Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Latur and filed application for

restitution of conjugal rights against respondent no.2. None of the

applicants harassed or maltreated respondent no.2 at any point of

time for any reason and in any manner. On the contrary, after about

one year of marriage, respondent no.2 started quarreling with

..6.. CrAppln.2001.2019

applicants for petty reasons. Upon applicant no.1's filing application

for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, referred above, as a counter blast respondent no.2

lodged false FIR and without conducting effective investigation, only

after recording statements of some interested witnesses

charge-sheeted the applicants for the aforesaid offences. The purpose

of respondent no.2 behind the FIR and charge-sheet was to harass

and trouble the applicants. Absolutely, there is no legal evidence to

prove the allegations. As such, to prevent the abuse of process of

law, FIR and charge-sheet both are liable to be quashed by invoking

inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. According to Mr M.L.

Dharashive, Advocate neither dowry of Rs.60,000/- was agreed to be

paid prior to marriage nor paid after marriage, the allegations in this

respect are false and afterthought allegations. Likewise, allegations

in respect of demand of Rs.Two Lakhs for opening hair salon for

applicant no.1 and subjecting respondent no.2 to cruelty for

fulfillment of the said demand are also false and afterthought.

7. Per contra, Mr M.S. Shaikh, Advocate, h/f. Mr Sachin S.

Deshmukh, Advocate vehemently argued that, FIR and charge-sheet

are based on true facts. After investigation, the four applicants found

to have subjected respondent no.2 to cruelty as alleged, therefore,

..7.. CrAppln.2001.2019

they have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 498-A,

323, 504 and 506 r.w. 34 of the IPC. FIR clearly speaks about

demand of Rs.Two Lakhs made by the applicants and harassment of

respondent no.2 by abusing and assaulting her to fulfill their illegal

demand of money. Case made out in the FIR and charge-sheet gets

support from the statements of the witnesses recorded during the

course of investigation. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said

that, FIR and charge-sheet both are false and concocted. Therefore,

the application for quashing the same by invoking inherent powers is

liable to be rejected.

8. Mr A.V. Deshmukh, APP adopted the aforesaid

arguments advanced by Mr M.S. Shaikh, Advocate, h/f. Mr Sachin S.

Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

9. On concluding arguments of both sides,

Mr M.L. Dharashive, learned Advocate, on instructions from the

applicants, has withdrawn the application to the extent of applicant

nos.1 to 3 and continued the same in respect of applicant no.4, who

is grand mother of applicant no.1.

..8.. CrAppln.2001.2019

10. Since application to the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3

has been disposed of as withdrawn, it is necessary for the Court to

see that, whether allegations made in FIR and charge-sheet are

sufficient to make out prima facie case against applicant no.4? It is

pertinent to note that, applicant no.4 is old aged grandmother of

applicant no.1. The allegations of harassment and ill-treatment are

made mainly against applicant nos.1 to 3, and no specific allegations

have been made against applicant no.4. Looking to the age of

applicant no.4, it is difficult to believe that, applicant no.4 has also

harassed and ill-treated respondent no.2, who was wife of her

grandson. Therefore, it would not be legal and proper to call upon

applicant no.4 to face the trial along with applicant nos.1 to 3. We

cannot forget that, respondent no.2 has filed the FIR after instituted

the petition for restitution of conjugal rights by applicant no.1.

Therefore, we inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clause 'D'

only in respect of applicant no.4 - Sudamati. With this, we pass the

following order.

ORDER

1. Criminal application in respect of applicant No.1 - Bandu S/o Dinkar Kathare, applicant No.2 - Dinkar Karan Kathare and applicant No.3 - Jayshri W/o Dinkar Kathare is disposed of as withdrawn.

..9.. CrAppln.2001.2019

2. Criminal application in respect of applicant No.4 - Sudamati W/o Karan Kathare is allowed.

3. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "D".

4. Rule is made absolute in those terms.

         (B. U. DEBADWAR)                     (T.V. NALAWADE)
               JUDGE                                JUDGE



Gajanan Punde , PA.