Bombay High Court
Amit S/O. Ramesh Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 12 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
(1) criappln 1858.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1858 OF 2019
1. Amit S/o Ramesh Patil,
Age: 28 years, Occ. Service,
2. Ramesh S/o Tukaram Patil,
Age: 60 years, Occ. Retired,
3. Sandya W/o Ramesh Patil,
Age: 55 years, Occ. Household,
4. Abhijit S/o Ramesh Patil,
Age: 21 years, Occ. Service,
Applicant Nos. 1 to 4
R/o. Mahavir River Valley, Wing No.4,
House No.404,
Kalyan (West), Dist: Thane.
5. Dhanraj S/o Rajaram Patil,
Age: 50 yrs, Occu: Service,
6. Dipali W/o Dhanraj Patil,
Age: 45 years, Occ. Household,
Applicant Nos. 5 to 6
R/o. Ashtavinayak Colony,
Shri. Nagar Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Applicants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Bhusawal City Police Station,
Bhusawal.
2. Pratiksha W/o Amit Patil
Age: 22 years, Occu. Education,
R/o C/o Ravindra Madhav Chaudhari,
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:46 :::
(2) criappln 1858.19
S. No. 299/1/B, Plot No.4,
Ashtavinayak Colony, Jalgaon Road,
Bhusawal, Dist: Jalgaon. ... Respondents
(Res. No.2-Orig. Informant)
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S.S. Patil
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. G.O. Wattamwar
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. K. D. Mote (Appointed)
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12.01.2021
JUDGMENT : (Per: M.G. Sewlikar, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. and the
learned advocate for the respondent no.2 waive service. With the consent of
both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By this application the applicants are invoking the provisions of
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the relief of quashing of the FIR.
3. Respondent no.2 got married with applicant no.1 on 31.12.2018.
Applicant no.2 is the father, applicant no.3 is the mother, applicant no.4 is the
brother of applicant no.1. Applicant nos.5 and 6 are the mediators.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that respondent no.2 and her husband-
applicant no.1 had been to Mahabaleshwar during the period from
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:46 :::
(3) criappln 1858.19
05.01.2019 to 11.01.2019. On 18.01.2019 her maternal uncle Ashok Patil
had come to take her back to her maternal place at Bhusawal, District
Jalgaon. At that time applicant no.2 said to her that while returning she
should bring Rupees Five Lakhs from her parents otherwise she should not
come back. During co-habitation, she realized that applicant no.1 was
physically weak. Therefore, it was difficult for her to lead entire life with him.
Applicant nos.2 and 3 used to ask her to wash clothes after 12 in the night.
Applicant no.4 used to sit in her room till late in the night and used to cause
physical and mental ill-treatment. Applicant nos.5 and 6 tried to effect
settlement. Applicants stated that parents of respondent no.2 would be
required to pay at least Rupees Two Lakhs else they would not effect any
settlement. Finally, she lodged the complaint with the Womens Redressal Cell
on 26.02.2019 at Bhusawal. But since the settlement could not be effected,
she lodged the FIR in question.
5. Heard Shri S.S. Patil learned counsel for the applicants, Shri G.O.
Wattamwar learned APP for the State and Shri K.D. Mote learned counsel for
the respondent no.2.
6. When this Court expressed its disinclination to grant any relief to
applicant nos.1 to 3, Shri Patil learned counsel for the applicants sought
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:46 :::
(4) criappln 1858.19
permission to withdraw the application to their extent. Permission was
accordingly granted.
7. So far as the applicant nos.4 to 6 are concerned, it is seen that
they do not live with applicant nos.1 to 3. Applicant nos.5 and 6 are not the
relatives of the applicant nos.1 to 3. Prosecution under Section 498-A of the
I.P.C. can be initiated only against the husband or the relatives of the husband.
From the FIR it does not appear that applicant nos.5 and 6 are the relatives of
the husband of respondent no.2. They are strangers to the family. They are
the mediators. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against applicant nos.5
and 6 would be an abuse of process of law.
8. So far as applicant no.4 is concerned the only allegation against
him is that applicant no.4 used to sit in the room of respondent no.2 late in
the night. On the basis of such vague and general allegation, it cannot be
said that any offence much less cognizable offence can be said to be made out
against applicant no.4. In such circumstances continuation of prosecution
would be an abuse of process of law. It has been consistently held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court Court that there is a growing tendency to implicate as
many relatives as possible. Having regard to this, continuation of prosecution
would be a futile exercise. Hence the following order is passed:
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:46 :::
(5) criappln 1858.19
ORDER
I) Application of applicant nos.1 to 3 is disposed of as
withdrawn.
II) Application of applicant nos.4 to 6 is allowed.
Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause-B. Rule made absolute
in those terms.
III) Fees of the appointed counsel is quantified @ Rs.4,000/- and it is
to be paid through the High Court Legal Aid Services,
Sub- Committee, Aurangabad.
[M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
mub
