Ram S/O Keshav Kamble And 2 Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Police ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9687 Bom

                                              1                                40-wp-324-21j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2021


  1. Mr. Ram S/o. Keshav Kamble,
     Age 58 years, Occ. Private,

  2. Mrs. Neela W/o. Ram Kamble,
     Age 50 years, Occ. Housewife,

  3. Mr. Sachin S/o. Ram Kamble,
     Age 31 years, Occ. Service,

      All R/o. Mahalaxmi Park,
      Padmawati Nagar,
      Behind New Subhedar Co-operative Bank,
      Manish Nagar, Besa, Nagpur.                                       . . . PETITIONERS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     its Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Samta Nagar,
     Mumbai.

  2. Mrs. Swati W/o. Vinod Kamble,
     Age 29 years, Occ. Housewife,
     R/o. C/o. Flat No. 601, D-Wing,
     Gokul Residency, Thakur Village,
     Kandiwali (East), Mumbai-400101.                                . . . RESPONDENTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for petitioners.
 Ms. Mrunal A. Barabde, A.P. P. for respondent no. 1/State.
 Shri V. V. Parshurami, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 26.07.2021

2 40-wp-324-21j.odt

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and

learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality were proper.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

petitioners are challenging registration of First Information Report

(FIR) No. 130/2021, dated 13.03.2021 registered with the respondent

No. 1-Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498A,

506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the petitioners, who

are family members of the husband of respondent no. 2. It is alleged

that marriage between respondent no. 2 and son of petitioner nos. 1

and 2 was solemnized on 28.12.2018. It is alleged that son of the

petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioners have physically and

mentally harassed respondent no. 2 on the ground of non-payment of

dowry. It is alleged that son of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had beaten

respondent no. 2 during her pregnancy period for non-payment of an

amount of ₹ 5 lakhs as dowry. Respondent no. 2 therefore, filed a 5 lakhs as dowry. Respondent no. 2 therefore, filed a

3 40-wp-324-21j.odt

complaint bearing Crime No. 130/2021 with respondent no. 1-Police

Station on 13.03.2021.

5. The petitioners have therefore filed the present petition

challenging registration of the FIR. This Court on 10.06.2021 issued

notices to the respondents. Respondent no. 1- Investigating Agency

has filed its reply stating that there is sufficient material available

against the petitioners to show that they are involved in the crime

alleged against them.

6. Respondent no. 2 has filed reply stating that the

petitioners physically and mentally harassed respondent no. 2 and

therefore, she filed complaint before Samta Nagar Police Station,

Kandiwali, Mumbai. It is stated that there is sufficient material

available against the petitioners, which fulfill ingredients of the offence

alleged against the petitioners.

7. We have heard Shri Rajnish Vyas, learned Advocate for the

petitioners, Ms. Mrunal A. Barabde, learned A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/

State and Shri V. V. Parshurami, learned Advocate for respondent

no. 2.

8. Now a days, it become tendency to make vague

allegations against every members of family of husband implicating

everybody under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other

4 40-wp-324-21j.odt

offences under Indian Penal Code. Hence, it become necessary for

Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the

allegations made against the family members really constitute offence

alleged against them and meet requirements of law at least prima

facie. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of

Telengana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 observed that relatives of

husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague allegations,

unless specific instances of their involvement are set out.

9. Having carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and

reply filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the allegations

against the petitioners are vague and no specific instances of

involvement of the petitioners are set out in the FIR. It is not in dispute

that the petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is mother-in-

law and petitioner no. 3 is brother-in-law of respondent no. 2. Hence,

we are satisfied that the allegations in the FIR alongwith material

produced by the respondents, prima facie, does not fulfill ingredients

of offence under Section 498A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

10. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

First Information Report No. 130/2021, dated 13.03.2021

registered against the petitioners with respondent no. 1-Police Station

5 40-wp-324-21j.odt

for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                  JUDGE




RR Jaiswal