Bombay High Court
Gajanan S/O. Shankarrao Mate And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.879 OF 2017
APPLICANTS: 1. Gajanan s/o Shankarrao Mate,
Aged about : 53 years,
Occ. : Private Job.
2. Shakuntala w/o Shankar Mate,
Aged about : 83 years, Occ. : Nil.
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Rajapeth,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Vandana w/o Gajanan Mate,
Aged about : 48 years,
R/o C/o Shankarrao Ghatol,
Mohan Colony, Camp, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. G. R. Diwe, Advocate h/f Shri P. R. Agrawal, Advocate for
applicants.
Shri S. D. Sirpurkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-
applicant No.1-State.
None for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 11/01/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1. Heard Ms. G. R. Diwe, Advocate h/f Shri P. R.
Agrawal, Advocate for the applicants and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, APP
for non-applicant No.1-State.
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 09:45:06 :::
2 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged the charge-
sheet arising out of FIR No.879/2016 dated 10 th November, 2016
registered with the non-applicant No.1 - Police Station for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that the applicant No.1
demanded amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and was insisting
for payment of said amount. It is also alleged that the applicants
mentally and physically harassed the non-applicant No.2 by
confining her in one room.
5. The charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amravati on
10/11/2016. The allegations in the final report are similar to the
accusations which were made in the First Information Report.
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 09:45:06 :::
3 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
6. Ms. G. R. Diwe, Advocate for the applicant
submitted that the non-applicant No.2 had filed complaint under
the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (for short "The Act of 2005") bearing DV Case
No.245/2016. It is also pointed out that there was specific issue
framed as regards the mental and physical harassment allegedly
caused by the applicants. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court
No. No.8, Amravati by the judgment and order dated 9 th October,
2017 considered the allegations and material which was produced
before it by the non-applicant No.2 and recorded finding that the
non-applicant No.2 failed to prove physical or mental harassment
allegedly caused by the applicants. She submitted that the
allegations in the complaint filed under the provisions of the Act of
2005 are similar to allegations which are made in the charge-
sheet. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vrs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and in
the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vrs. State of Jharkhand and
another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667. She, therefore, submitted
that the charge sheet filed against the applicants, be quashed and
set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 09:45:06 :::
4 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
7. The non-applicant No.2 is served with the notice of
this application and she has filed reply disputing the contents of
the application. In the reply, the non-applicant No.2 reiterated her
allegation that the applicants have caused physical and mental
cruelty to the non-applicant No.2.
8. We have scrutinized the contents of the First
Information Report and the charge sheet which is produced on
record by the applicants. We have also gone through the judgment
of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.8, Amravati
constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Having gone
through the contents of the First Information Report and the
judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.8,
Amravati, we are satisfied that the allegations made against the
applicants are similar in nature to the allegations made in the
complaint filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005. The
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.8, Amravati in the
judgment dated 09/10/2017 in para Nos.16 and 17 has
categorically recorded the finding that the non-applicant No.2 has
failed to produce in the evidence to substantiate the allegations
made against the applicants. Since the allegations made under the
::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 09:45:06 :::
5 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
Act of 2005 against the applicant are similar with the allegations
in the present proceedings, we are satisfied that continuance of
the present proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and another (supra) has held that the allegations in the
First Information Report must be specific and casual reference to
both the applicants or the husband would not make liable for
continuation of prosecution. In the facts of the present case, we
find that the allegations which are made against the present
applicants are vague in nature. The non-applicant No.2 has not
given the details as regards the physical and mental violence
caused by the applicants.
10. We are, therefore, satisfied that the First
Information Report and the charge sheet filed against the
applicants, need to be quashed and set aside.
11. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
ORDER
I] The charge sheet arising out of the
First Information Report No.879/2016 dated
6 28-J-APL-879-17.odt
10/11/2016 registered with the non-applicant No.1
- Police Station under Section 498-A r/w Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
II] The criminal application is allowed
in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
