Bombay High Court
Pushpa W/O. Panjabrao ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl601.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 601/2018
1] Pushpa W/o Panjabrao Ghanbahaddur,
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household,
2] Sonal W/o Sugatanand Ghanbahaddur,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Household
Both R/o. Gaglani Nagar, Frezarpura,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Frezarpura, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati
2] Ranjana W/o Jaiprakash Ghanbahaddur,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. At Sukali, Post - Lotwada,
Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
___________________________________________________________________
Ms. Aastha Sharma, Adv h/f Shri P.R. Agrawal, Adv for the applicant(s)
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
Shri A.K. Madne, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 13/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
ANSARI
Judgment 2 apl601.18.odt
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3] The applicants have invoked the power of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge F.I.R.
No. 582/2018 dated 25/05/2018 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 -
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 354-A, 354-B,
417, 294, 323, 504, 506, 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4] The applicant no. 1 is the mother-in-law of the non-applicant
no. 2 and the applicant no. 2 is the sister-in-law of the non-applicant no. 2.
The first information report came to be registered with the accusations that
the husband of the non-applicant no. 2 alongwith the applicants and other
family members physically and mentally harassed the non-applicant no. 2
from time to time. Insofar as the present applicants are concerned, the
allegations are made against the present applicants that they alongwith other
family members have taken the gold jewellery of the non-applicant no. 2 and
have kept the said jewellery with them.
5] The applicants have therefore approached this Court by way of
the present application. This Court on 06/07/2018 issued notice to the non-
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl601.18.odt
applicants and in the meantime by way of ad-interim relief, it was directed
that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.
6] The non-applicant no. 2 has filed her reply and contested the
application. In the reply, it is stated that the applicants were playing active
role to harass the non-applicant no. 2. It is further alleged that the applicant
no. 1, being the mother-in-law, has not performed her duty and not provided
bedroom to the non-applicant no. 2. It is also stated in the reply that the
applicant no. 2 is residing at Akot adjoining to the non-applicant no. 2 and
used to visit house of the non-applicant no. 2 on Sundays.
7] The non-applicant no. 1 - Prosecution has filed its reply and it is
stated that in pursuance of the first information report, the investigation is
set in motion. It is stated in para no. 4 of the reply that when the
Investigating Officer tried to record the statement of the non-applicant no. 2,
the non-applicant no. 2 refused to record her statement and abused the
Investigating Officer alongwith her sister and tried to assault the
Investigating Officer. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has lodged
complaint against the non-applicant no. 2 in Police Station Sadar (copy of
which is placed on record at Annexure R-I).
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl601.18.odt
8] We have carefully considered the contents of the first
information report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that the tendency of involving in-laws in
proceedings related to matrimonial dispute has been on rise and therefore,
Courts are expected to exercise caution while considering the applications
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We find that the
allegations in the first information report qua the present applicants are
vague in nature. There are no specific dates and instances mentioned by the
non-applicant no. 2 in her report. Apart from the first information report, in
the affidavit-in-reply also, the non-applicant no. 2 has not specified and given
the details about the role played by the applicants. In absence of specific
allegations and details in the first information report, continuation of the
prosecution against the present applicants would amount to abuse of process
of Court. We are therefore satisfied that the present case is a fit case where
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised
to meet the ends of justice. The present case is squarely covered by clause
(1) of paragraph No.102 given in the judgment in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335.
9] Hence, the following order is passed :-
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl601.18.odt
a) F.I.R. No. 582/2018 dated 25/05/2018 registered
with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 377, 354-A, 354-B, 417, 294, 323,
504, 506, 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed.
The criminal application is allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
ANSARI
