Bombay High Court
Chandrashekhar S/O. Dnyanoba ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 21 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, B. U. Debadwar
..1.. CrAppln.3938.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3938 OF 2017
1. Chandrashekhar s/o Dnyanoba Rohi
Age : 40 years, Occu : Labour
R/o. Kharola, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur, at present Driver Colony,
Near Ankur Vidyalaya, old Ausa Road,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur
2. Prayagbai w/o Dnyanoba Rohi
Age : 58 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Kharola, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur
3. Dnyanoba s/o Tukaram Rohi
Age : 65 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o. Kharola, Tq. Renapur,
Dist. Latur
4. Parappa s/o Ram Mudgude
Age : 55 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o. At Post Nalegaon, Tal. Chakur,
Dist. Latur
5. Satyabhama s/o Gurunath Mane
Age : 45 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Chincholi (B), Tq. & Dist. Latur
6. Sunita w/o Bappaji Bedke
Age : 43 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. At Post Govardhanwadi,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad .. Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Renapur, Dist. Latur
2. Anjali w/o Chandrashekhar Rohi
Age : 34 years, Occu : Household
::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 12:31:57 :::
..2.. CrAppln.3938.2017
R/o. Shivankhed, Tq. Chakur,
Dist. Latur ... Respondents
....
Shri S.S. Manale, Advocate for the Applicants
Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for the Respondent / State
Shri N.D. Kendre, Advocate for Respondent No.2
....
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 FIR.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally for
final disposal.
3. Heard Mr Satish S. Manale, learned Advocate for the
applicants, Mr G.O. Wattamwar, learned APP for respondent no.1 /
State and Mr N.D. Kendre, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 /
first informant.
4. The applicants are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
husband's uncle and sister-in-laws of respondent no.2, respectively.
..3.. CrAppln.3938.2017
The marriage of respondent no.2 with applicant no.1 was solemnized
on 07-06-2002 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their
community. From the wedlock, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2
blessed with two sons namely Dadasaheb Chandrashekhar Rohi,
Tukaram Chandrashekhar Rohi and one daughter Kum. Yogeshri
Chandrashekhar Rohi. Initially, the complainant (respondent no.2)
was treated well by the husband and in-laws, however since last 9
years husband and in-laws are harassing and ill-treating the
complainant constantly. They used to keep her hungry and get
excessive manual work from her. On the instigation of other
applicants, applicant no.1 used to harass and ill-treat respondent no.2
physically for not offering gold ornaments to their children by her
parents on the occasion of their naming ceremony. Besides, all the
applicants constantly taunt and insult her. In addition to that,
applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 (husband and mother-in-law) used
to beat her severely. When harassment and ill-treatment became
unbearable, on 10-07-2017 respondent no.2 rushed to Police Station
Renapur, Dist. Latur and lodged the report narrating aforesaid facts
and on the basis of the said report, Police Officials of Renapur Police
Station registered crime bearing no.246 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') against the
..4.. CrAppln.3938.2017
applicants on very day at about 12:30 p.m. and commenced the
investigation.
5. Mr Satish S. Manale, Advocate while taking us through
papers annexed to the application under the list Exh.12 including
copy of the bank pass book of applicant no.1, copies of bona fide
certificates of children of applicant no.1 and respondent no.2, copy of
legal notice dated 02-11-2016 issued by applicant no.1 to respondent
no.2, copy of HMP No.99 of 2017, copy of application moved to the
Women's Grievance Cell, Latur by respondent no.2 dated 16-03-2017,
copy of FIR sought to be quashed and copy of Aadhar card of
applicant no.4 Parappa Ram Mudgude, vehemently argued that,
applicant no.1 is a mason by profession. He used to do masonry
work at Pune. After marriage, he started living and cohabiting with
respondent no.2 at Pune. They stayed at Pune till 2008. Respondent
no.2 is quarrelsome lady. Since beginning she used to pick up quarrel
with husband. Having fed up with nature of respondent no.2, in the
year 2008 applicant no.1 along with respondent no.2 and their
children shifted to native place at Renapur, Dist. Latur. They resided
at Renapur along with applicant nos.2 and 3 hardly for 6 months.
However, thereafter applicant no.1 along with wife (respondent
no.2) and children left the house of his parents (applicant nos.2 and
..5.. CrAppln.3938.2017
3) and started living separately. In the year - 2015 they moved to
Latur for the purpose of education of their children. On 28-02-2016
after picking up quarrel with husband - applicant no.1, respondent
no.2 left their house at Latur and went to her sister's house at Pune
along with children. After staying there for some period, she moved
to her parental house at village Shivankhed, Tal. Chakur, Dist. Latur
and started living there with her parents.
6. Mr Satish S. Manale, Advocate further argued that,
respondent no.2 deserted applicant no.1 without any reasonable
cause. In spite of calling her upon to resume cohabitation and
issuing notice for that purpose, respondent no.2 did not resume
cohabitation with applicant no.1 by returning back to his house.
Since respondent no.2 did not respond to the notice, at last, applicant
no.1 rushed to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur and
instituted application for divorce against the respondent no.2 bearing
HMP No.99 of 2017. After knowing about the same, respondent no.2
made false complaint to the Women's Grievance Cell at Latur against
all the applicants, first and then lodged false FIR making false
allegations with malafide intention to harass and trouble the
applicants. In fact, none of the applicants, at any time, harassed and
ill-treated respondent no.2 for any reason. On the contrary,
..6.. CrAppln.3938.2017
respondent no.2 after behaving with applicants in a very rude
manner deserted the husband - applicant no.1 and started living at
her parental house for no reason.
7. Mr Satish S. Manale, Advocate further argued that FIR
has been lodged, belatedly by making utterly false and vague
allegations. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed by invoking inherent
powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
8. Per contra, Mr N.D. Kendre, learned Advocate for
respondent no.2 / original complainant vehemently argued that,
since beginning attitude and conduct of the applicants / husband and
relatives of husband towards respondent no.2 was improper. They
used to constantly harass and ill-treat respondent no.2 by various
means and ways. Respondent no.2 continued to live and cohabit with
husband at her matrimonial house for betterment of the children and
with a hope that change will take place in the conduct of the
applicants, but when harassment become intolerable, she was
compelled to leave her matrimonial house. The allegations made in
the FIR are true and correct. Respondent no.2 had no reason to leave
the matrimonial house after about 14 years of marriage. The
application dated 16-03-2017 moved by respondent no.2 lends full
..7.. CrAppln.3938.2017
support to the FIR. The woman, who has three grown up children,
will not leave the company of husband and in-laws unless it becomes
very difficult for her to leave the matrimonial house. The notice and
petition for divorce both are false and afterthought. No case of
quashing FIR is made out, therefore, the application is liable to be
rejected.
9. Mr G.O. Wattamwar, learned APP representing
respondent no.1 / State adopted the arguments advanced by Mr N.D.
Kendre, Advocate for respondent no.2.
10. In the light of aforesaid submissions made at bar, we
have carefully gone through all the papers including impugned FIR
annexed to the application. It is not in dispute that, the applicants
are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, maternal uncle of
applicant no.1 and sister-in-laws of respondent no.2, respectively.
From the application for quashing FIR itself it can be gathered very
well that applicant nos.4 to 6 are neither resident of Renapur nor
Latur, but they are resident of village Nalegaon, Tal. Chakur, village
Chincholi (B), Tal. & Dist. Latur and village Govardhanwadi Tal. &
Dist. Osmanabad, respectively.
..8.. CrAppln.3938.2017
11. It is also evident from the record that applicant no.1
(husband of respondent no.2) is permanent resident of Renapur.
Initially, he used to reside at Pune for earning livelihood and then
shifted to Latur and thereafter returned back to native place. Nothing
is brought on record by the applicants showing that respondent no.2
was never in the company of applicant nos.2 and 3. Allegations
made in the FIR are prima facie sufficient to make out the case under
Section 498-A of IPC. The question is only about complicity of
applicant Nos.4 to 6 in the incident / incidents, of harassment of
respondent no.2.
12. Having regard to the facts that applicant nos.4 to 6 are
maternal uncle and real married sisters of applicant no.1, respectively
and they do not reside at Renapur with applicant nos.1 to 3, but they
reside at different places viz. Nalegaon, Chincholi (B) and
Govardhanwadi, which are away from Renapur, therefore their
complicity in the offence of harassment of respondent no.2 as alleged
in the FIR cannot be believed and accepted. Nothing is mentioned in
the FIR as to how they instigated applicant no.1 for ill-treating and
maltreating of respondent no.2. Totality of record prima facie
evidences that since long matrimonial relations between applicant
no.1 and respondent no.2 were not cordial and there was a
..9.. CrAppln.3938.2017
matrimonial discord between them. In such circumstances, FIR
cannot be thrown away branding it as false. Applicant nos.1 to 3
being husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent 2,
their complicity in alleged crime cannot be denied as respondent no.2
used to reside with them for substantial period. However, in the
absence of details as to how applicant nos.4 to 6, were also joined
with applicant nos.1 to 3 in the act of harassment of respondent no.2
as alleged in the FIR, it would not be proper and legal to force them
to face the trial, when at the face of FIR it is clear that no case makes
out against them.
13. Since applicant nos.1 to 3 have withdrawn the
application after hearing for sometime, question of quashing the FIR
to their extent does not arise.
14. However, in view of the above, the impugned FIR is
liable to be quashed to the extent of applicant nos.4 to 6. With this,
we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Application of applicant no.1 Chandrashekhar, applicant
No.2 Prayagbai and applicant No.3 Dnyanoba is disposed of as
withdrawn.
..10.. CrAppln.3938.2017
2. Application of applicant No.4 Parappa, applicant No.5
Satyabhama and applicant No.6 Sunita 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.
