Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O Kashinath Mimrot And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 21 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, B. U. Debadwar
..1.. CrAppln.1802.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1802 OF 2020
1. Santosh s/o Kashinath Mimrot
Age : 32 years, Occu : Service
R/o. H.No. 11/2/165, Lane No.3,
Sanjay Nagar, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad
2. Pushpa w/o Kashinath Mimrot
Age : 60 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. H.No. 11/2/165, Lane No.3,
Sanjay Nagar, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad
3. Prakash s/o Kashinath Mimrot
Age : 35 years, Occu : Service
R/o. Block No.335/079, Kurla Camp,
Hanuman Mandir Road, Near
Morya Kirana, Ulhasnagar, Thane.
4. Leela w/o Ganesh Reshwal
Age : 38 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. At Post Pal, Tal. Phulambri,
Dist. Aurangabad .. Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Mukundwadi Police Station,
Aurangabad
2. Maya w/o Santosh Mimrot
Age : 30 years, Occu : Business
R/o. C/o. Suresh Banswal, near
Shitlamata Mandir, Padampura,
Aurangabad ... Respondents
....
Mr Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent / State
Mr A.D. Sugdare, Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 12:32:02 :::
..2.. CrAppln.1802.2020
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 bearing No.26 of 2019 / R.C.C. No.797 of 2019.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally for
final disposal.
3. Heard Mr Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate for the Applicants,
Mr G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent / State and Mr A.D.
Sugdare, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
4. The applicants are husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-
law and married sister-in-law of respondent no.2, respectively.
Marriage of respondent no.2 with applicant no.1 has been
solemnized on 29-04-2016 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing
in their community. After marriage, respondent no.2 went to her
matrimonial house situated at Mukundwadi, Aurangabad and started
cohabiting with applicant no.1 there. After marriage only for 1 ½
..3.. CrAppln.1802.2020
months matrimonial life of respondent no.2 was normal. Meanwhile,
she became pregnant. On her becoming pregnant, applicant no.1
took respondent no.2 to her paternal house situated at Padampura,
Aurangabad on the pretext that he (applicant no.1) cannot bear
expenses of delivery. Consequently, parents of respondent no.2 bore
the expenses of her delivery. She delivered a male child. After 5
months of delivery, she returned back to her matrimonial house on
her own. Prior to marriage, on the occasion of engagement
ceremony, parents of respondent no.2, on the demand of applicants,
gave one gold ring to applicant no.1 and even after marriage, parents
of respondent no.2 gave 2 gold rings to him. In spite of performing
marriage in best all possible manner, all the applicants used to harass
respondent no.2 mentally and physically for fulfilling their further
demand of gold and money. They all are greedy persons. In spite of
taking every efforts to convince the applicants, they did not stop
harassment and ill-treating respondent no.2. The matter had reached
to Women's Redressal Forum, but no compromise took place. As
such, respondent no.2 was constrained to lodge the report against the
applicants. Accordingly, on 09-10-2018 respondent no.2 lodged the
FIR at Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad narrating aforesaid
allegations.
..4.. CrAppln.1802.2020
5. On the basis of aforesaid report, Station House Officer on
duty registered Crime bearing No.312 of 2018 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and under Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'Dowry
Act'), and after investigation, all the applicants came to be charge-
sheeted before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w.
34 of the IPC.
6. Being aggrieved by case R.C.C. No.797 of 2019
registered on the basis of aforesaid charge-sheet no.26 of 2019, the
applicants have moved this application for quashing of charge sheet /
RCC No.797 of 2019.
7. After hearing for some time, on instructions, Mr R.G.
Joshi, Advocate for applicants withdrew the application to the extent
of applicant no.1 Santosh and applicant no.2 Pushpa. Therefore,
present application for quashing charge-sheet disposed of as
withdrawn as far as applicant nos.1 and 2 and proceeded further as
far as applicant nos.3 and 4, who are admittedly brother-in-law and
sister-in-law of respondent no.2.
..5.. CrAppln.1802.2020
8. While taking us through the copy of FIR, copy of charge-
sheet, copy of petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by applicant no.1 against
respondent no.2, compromise pursis dated 14-05-2019 filed in HMP
No.613 of 2018, communication made by applicant no.1 to
respondent no.2 and her father time to time, copy of N.C. case
registered No.240/2018 dated 26-05-2018, written complaint against
respondent no.2 made by applicant no.1 to Police Commissioner,
Aurangabad, copies of Aadhar cards of applicant nos.3 and 4,
appointment letter of respondent no.3, Mr R.G. Joshi, Advocate
vehemently argued that, the allegations made in the FIR and
charge-sheet are utterly false and afterthought allegations. Nobody
from the applicants harassed or ill-treated respondent no.2 at any
point of time for any reason. Since beginning attitude and conduct of
respondent no.2 was not normal. She used to behave with everybody
in arrogant manner and frequently go to her parental house for no
reason. She wanted to reside separately from parents-in-law. She
used to insist for the same to applicant no.1 - husband. When
applicant no.1 refused for separation from parents, the conduct of
respondent no.2 aggravated. It was respondent no.2 who used to pick
up quarrel with applicant no.1 and his parents for petty reasons.
..6.. CrAppln.1802.2020
Parents of respondent no.2 in spite of giving understanding used to
support and instigate respondent no.2. Without any reason
respondent no.2 left the company of applicant no.1 and deserted
him. The allegations against applicant nos.3 and 4 are baseless and
totally false allegations. Since they both reside away from applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2, they had no reason to harass or ill-treat
respondent no.2. They have been falsely implicated as they are
closely related with applicant no.1 - husband. FIR as far as applicant
nos.3 and 4 concerned, is not only false, but actuated by malice. No
purpose would be served in compelling them to face the trial. Since
there is no material, their acquittal from case after trial is crystal
clear. Therefore, charge-sheet / R.C.C. No.797 of 2019 (case
registered against the applicants on the basis of charge-sheet) is
liable to be quashed against them.
9. Per contra, Mr A.D. Sugdare, Advocate for respondent
no.2 vehemently argued that, Suresh Banswal is the cousin maternal
uncle of applicant no.1. The marriage between applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2 is a settled marriage. The applicants were knowing
respondent no.2 and her family members since childhood of the
respondent no.2 as both the families were closely related with each
other. FIR and charge-sheet both based on true facts. Respondent
..7.. CrAppln.1802.2020
no.2 had no reason to make false allegations against the applicants.
Since the applicants harassed and humiliated her for fulfillment of
their illegal demand of money and gold, no option left with
respondent no.2 than to take criminal action against the applicants.
Respondent nos.3 and 4, who are real elder brother and real sister of
applicant no.1, are equally responsible as they used to instigate
applicant nos. 1 and 2 for harassing respondent no.2, instead of
preventing them from the same. Besides, all the applicants in
furtherance of their common intention, subjected respondent no.2 to
cruelty contemplated in Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, the
application as far as applicant nos.3 and 4 is also liable to be
dismissed.
10. Mr G.O. Wattamwar, learned APP representing
respondent no.1 / State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr A.D.
Sugdare, Advocate for respondent no.2.
11. In the light of aforesaid submissions made at bar by the
learned Advocate representing both sides, we have carefully gone
through the papers annexed to the application, referred in para
supra. It is evident from the record that, shortly after marriage
matrimonial discord between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2
..8.. CrAppln.1802.2020
took place. Applicant nos.3 and 4 are real elder brother and real
married sister of applicant no.1. FIR and charge-sheet both are silent
as to the occupation of applicant no.3 and the places where applicant
nos.3 and 4 reside. Copies of, offer of employment on probation and
confirmation of appointment letter demonstrate that L&T Integrated
Engineering Services, Mumbai employed applicant, in SEZ unit on
02-08-2011 on probation and after completion of probationary
period, confirmed him on the said post on 10-04-2012. Aadhar card
of applicant no.3 makes it clear that, since appointment in L&T
Company he resides at Block No.335/669, Kurla Camp, Hanuman
Mandir Road, Near Morya Kirana, Ulhasnagar, Thane. Respondent
no.2 neither denied the employment of applicant no.3 nor his
aforesaid address.
12. Admittedly, applicant no.4 is real married sister of
applicant no.1. She was given in marriage to Ganesh Reshwal.
Aadhar card of applicant no.4 brought on record by the applicants
indicates that, her matrimonial house is situated at Pal, Phulambri,
Tal. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad and she resides there with her
husband and in-laws. Respondent no.2 has also not disputed the
same.
..9.. CrAppln.1802.2020
13. Allegations made in Charge-sheet are omnibus
allegations. Details of harassment meted out by applicant nos.3 and
4 do not find place therein. When applicant nos.3 and 4 used to
reside away from applicant nos.1 and 2, in the absence of specific
allegations, merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations,
they cannot be said to have been involved in the commission of crime
directly or indirectly. Charge-sheet and omnibus statements of
witnesses appended to the charge-sheet are not at all sufficient to
make prima facie case covered by Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w.
34 of IPC against applicant nos.3 and 4. Thus, there appears force
and substance in the contention of applicant nos.3 and 4 that they
have been falsely implicated out of vengeance as they are closely
related with applicant no.1.
14. In view of above, it would be proper and legal to quash
the charge-sheet / R.C.C. No.797 of 2019 to the extent of applicant
nos.3 and 4.
15. With this, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Application of applicant No.1 Santosh and applicant No.2
Pushpa is disposed of as withdrawn.
..10.. CrAppln.1802.2020
2. Application of applicant No.3 Prakash and applicant No.4 Lila
is allowed. Relief is granted to them in terms of prayer clause 'B'.
Rule is made absolute in those terms.
(B. U. DEBADWAR) (T.V. NALAWADE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Gajanan Punde , PA.
