Shakti Vijaysingh Chandel And 4 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9689 Bom

                                            1                     29-apl-843-20j.odt

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

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 843 OF 2020


  1. Shakti Vijaysingh Chandel,
     Age 36 years, Occ. Field Officer,
     R/o. Cotton Green Colony,
     Dist. & Tah. Amravati.

  2. Vijaysingh Babusingh Chandel,
     Age 78 years, Occ. Ret. Teacher,
     R/o. Cotton Green Colony,
     Dist. & Tah. Amravati.

  3. Akash Vijaysingh Chandel,
     Age 39 years, Occ. Teacher,
     R/o. Cotton Green Colony,
     Dist. & Tah. Amravati.

  4. Sagar Vijaysingh Chandel,
     Age 40 years, Occ. Civil Enginner,
     R/o. Boesar, Dist. Palghar.

  5. Amol Vijaysingh Chandel,
     Age 43 years, Occ. Teacher,
     R/o. Sello, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.                      . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. The State of Maharashtra through
     Police Station Officedr,
     Police Station, Partwada,
     Dist. Amravati.

  2. Smt. Kamala Pratap Singh Chauhan,
     Aged 54 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o. T. V. Tower Square,
     Pensionpura, Paratwada,
     Dist. & Tah. Amravati.                            . . NON-APPLICANTS




::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2021                    ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2021 10:09:47 :::
                                               2                               29-apl-843-20j.odt

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for applicants.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P. P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 None for non-applicant no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CORAM :- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 26.07.2021

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 application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicant had challenged registration of First

Information Report (FIR) No. 260/2020, dated 06.06.2020 registered

with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 506 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also challenged

filing of charge-sheet no. 157/2020, dated 22.09.2020 and proceeding

bearing RCC No. 657/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Achalpur.

3 29-apl-843-20j.odt

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

accusations that marriage of daughter of the non-applicant no. 2 was

fixed with applicant no. 1 and there was engagement ceremony. It is

alleged that after engagement of daughter of the non-applicant no. 2

with applicant no. 1 and the applicants demanded an amount of ₹ 5 5

lakhs as dowry and due to non-payment of the said dowry, the

proposed marriage between applicant no. 1 and daughter of the non-

applicant no. 1 was cancelled.

5. The Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and

filed charge-sheet against the applicants. The applicants have

therefore challenged registration of the FIR and filing of charge-sheet

by way of present application. This Court on 21.12.2020 issued

notices for final hearing to the non-applicants. The non-applicant no.

1 has filed reply stating that the Investigating Agency has recorded

statements of six witnesses and has seized photographs and video of

engagement ceremony.

6. The non-applicant no. 2 has also filed reply stating that

though the initial complaint filed by the non-applicant no. 2 was

withdrawn as the applicants assured settlement in respect of expenses

of engagement ceremony but, there is sufficient material against the

applicants to fulfill ingredients of offences under the provisions of

4 29-apl-843-20j.odt

Dowry Prohibition Act. Today none appeared for the non-applicant

no. 2.

7. With the assistance of learned advocate for applicants and

learned APP, we have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR

and material in the form of charge-sheet. On careful scrutiny of the

material in the form of charge-sheet, it appears that there are no

details such as date and place where the applicants demanded dowry

from the non-applicant no. 2. On going through the statements of the

witnesses placed on record by way of charge-sheet it appears that the

witnesses have no personal knowledge about demand of dowry. The

witnesses have stated that they received information regarding

demand of dowry from son of the non-applicant no. 2. In absence of

any specific details regarding demand of dowry, the prosecution

against the applicants cannot be continued. The applicant nos. 2 to 5

are family members of applicant no. 1 with whom the daughter of the

non-applicant no. 2 was engaged.

8. Now a days, it became tendency to make vague allegations

against every members of family of husband and therefore, it becomes

necessary for the Court to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to

find out if the allegations really constitute an offence and meet

requirements of law, at least prima facie. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telengana , reported in

5 29-apl-843-20j.odt

(2018) 14 SCC 452 has 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. On overall scrutiny of the FIR and

charge-sheet, we are of the opinion that the allegations against the

applicants are vague and omnibus and statements of the witnesses,

which forms part of charge-sheet are based on hearsay knowledge.

9. Hence, we are satisfied that material produced by the

prosecution alongwith charge-sheet, prima facie, does not fulfill

ingredients of offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

First Information Report No. 260/2020, dated 06.06.2020

registered against the applicants with the non-applicant no. 1-Police

Station, charge-sheet No. 157/2020, dated 22.09.2020 and proceeding

bearing RCC No. 657/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Achalpur are quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                               JUDGE                                   JUDGE

RR Jaiswal