Bombay High Court
Anil Baban Rathod And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
964.20APPLN.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
944 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.964 OF 2020
1. Anil Baban Rathod
Age : 32 years, Occ : Service,
R/o C/o Vishal Khajinkar
Municipal Council's Employees
Residential Area, Gangapur,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Baban Mansing Rathod
Age : 53 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Bakshachi Wadi,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
3. Prayagbai Baban Rathod
Age : 50 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Bakshachi Wadi,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
4. Sunil Baban Rathod
Age : 29 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Bachelor Barak No.1,
Room No.32, S.R.P.F. Group No.14,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Yogita Suresh Pawar
Age : 27 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Ram Nagar, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna
At present S.R.P.F. quarters,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
6. Vijay Bhausing Chavan
Age : 39 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Wadigodri, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:04:14 :::
964.20APPLN.odt
2
7. Latabai Vijay Chavan
Age : 37 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Wadigodri, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna.
8. Ganesh Ramesh Rathod
Age : 27 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Bakshachi Wadi,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
9. Ravindra Mangilal Rathod
Age : 24 years, Occ : Education,
R/o Bakshachi Wadi,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
At present Udyog Bhavan,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.
10. Rohini Ganesh Rathod
Age : 25 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Bakshachi Wadi,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
..APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Police Station
Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
2. Swati D/o Arjun Jadhav @
Swati W/o Anil Rathod
Age : 21 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Rahuwadi, Post. Chinchkhed,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Amar Lavate h/f Shri S.J. Salunke,
Advocate for applicants;
Shri R.V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent No.1;
Shri Vishnu Jaware, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2021 07:04:14 :::
964.20APPLN.odt
3
CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
AND
B.U.DEBADWAR,JJ.
DATE : 17th March, 2021
Judgment ( Per B.U. Debadwar, J.):
1. This is an application under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."),
for quashing F.I.R. No.0060/2020, dated
27.02.2020, registered at Police Station,
Ambad, Dist. Jalna under sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(Hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C.") and
Regular Criminal Case bearing R.C.C.
No.249/2020, pending in the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Ambad, arising out of the said F.I.R.
2. Heard Mr.Amar Lavate, the learned
Advocate for the applicants, Mr.Vishnu
Jaware, the learned Advocate for respondent
no.2 and Mr.R.V. Dasalkar, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State.
3. Mr.Amar Lavate, the learned Advocate
for the applicants, on instructions,
964.20APPLN.odt
withdrawn the application to the extent of
applicant nos.1 to 3 and proceeded with the
same to the extent of the rest of applicants
i.e. applicant nos.4 to 10.
4. While taking us through the paper
book annexed to the application, consisting
of copies of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet,
Mr.Amar Lavate, the learned Advocate
submitted that the marriage of respondent
no.2 with applicant no.1 - Anil has been
solemnized on 26.05.2019. Only about four
months after the marriage, respondent no.2
left the house of applicant no.1-Anil and
went to her parental house situated at
village Rahuwadi, Tq.Ambad, Dist. Jalna,
without any reason, on her own accord.
Applicant nos.4 to 10 are close relatives of
applicant nos.1 to 3. They have no concerned
with the matrimonial life of applicant no.1
and respondent no.2. They reside away from
applicant nos.1 to 3, at different places.
The allegations made in F.I.R. are omnibus
allegations. No specific role in the alleged
harassment is attributed to any of applicant
nos.4 to 10. Their casual reference has been
made in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet. The
harassment is the only object to rope in them
964.20APPLN.odt
in the case. No fruitful purpose would be
served by dragging them to face the trial,
that would amount to abuse of process of
law. It is on the face of record, that the
ultimate result of the trial, if conducted,
would be their acquittal. Thus, according to
Mr.Amar Lavate, learned Advocate, this is a
fit case, wherein inherent powers under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked for
quashing the F.I.R. and the criminal case
arising out of the said F.I.R. against
applicant nos.4 to 10.
5. Per-contra, Mr.Vishnu Jaware, the
learned Advocate for respondent no.2
strenuously argued that applicant nos.4 to 10
are closely related with applicant nos.1 to
3. They are real brother, real sister,
maternal uncle, wife of the maternal uncle,
cousin brother, cousin brother and wife of
cousin brother of applicant no.1
respectively. Though they reside at different
places, are well connected with applicant
nos.1 to 3. Some time, they directly harassed
and ill-treated respondent no.2 and some
time, they had instigated applicant nos.1 to
3 to harass respondent no.2 for coercing her
to fulfill their demand of money. Their
964.20APPLN.odt
common intention with applicant nos.1 to 3 in
harassment of respondent no.2 clearly reveals
from the averments made in the F.I.R. After
due investigation, they are found to have
committed the offence under sections 498-A,
504, 506 of the I.P.C. along with applicant
nos.1 to 3. Since, there is a strong prima
facie case, no inherent powers to quash the
F.I.R. and charge-sheet can be invoked to
their extent. Therefore, the application is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Mr.Dasalkar, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1-State,
adopted the arguments submitted by Mr.Vishnu
Jaware, learned Advocate for respondent no.2.
7. In the light of aforesaid
submissions made at Bar by the learned
Advocates representing both sides, we have
carefully gone through the impugned F.I.R.
and the impugned charge-sheet.
8. The allegations made in the F.I.R.
bearing No.0060/2020 registered on 27.02.2020
at Police Station, Ambad, Dist. Jalna, are in
short, that respondent no.2 is the daughter
of Arjun Kannu Jadhav and Sumanbai Arjun
964.20APPLN.odt
Jadhav, residents of Rahuwadi, Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna. Her marriage with applicant no.1
has been solemnized on 26.05.2019. Parents of
respondent no.2 have given cash of
Rs.8,50,000/-, Bullet motorcycle, gold
ornaments, furniture and utensils to
applicant no.1 as dowry, at the time of
marriage. Applicant no.1 is a Government
servant, serving in Civil Court at Gangapur
as a Steno. After the marriage of respondent
no.2 with applicant no.1, her matrimonial
life was normal for about four months.
However, thereafter, all the applicants
started harassing and ill-treating her, not
only after raising doubt about her character
but also, on account of her not conceiving.
They used to beat respondent no.2 for the
said reasons. Inspite of physical and mental
harassment meted out, respondent no.2
continued to reside with her husband and
in-laws, with the hope that, the change will
take in their attitude and conduct, but no
change took place in the conduct of the
applicants. They continued to harass
respondent no.2 for coercing her to fulfill
their demand of Rs.20,00,000/-. They wanted
the said amount for construction of the
house. After harassing respondent no.2 on
964.20APPLN.odt
account of demand of Rs.20,00,000/-, her not
conceiving though sufficient period after the
marriage elapsed and doubt about her fidelity
at last, the applicants driven her out on
11.08.2019 and since then, respondent no.2 is
residing at her parental house. Inspite of
taking every efforts, the applicants did not
allow respondent no.2 to reside with them at
their house. Therefore, on 20.11.2019, she
approached the Special Women Cell constituted
by Police Authorities at Jalna and lodged a
complaint against the applicants. The
applicants, in pursuance of the summons
issued by the Authority of the aforesaid
Cell, appeared but flatly refused to maintain
respondent no.2. Therefore, respondent no.2
is constrained to lodge the F.I.R. against
the applicants.
9. The statements of the witnesses,
including parents of respondent no.2 recorded
during the course of investigation, are
almost identical with the F.I.R.
10. After scrutiny of the F.I.R. and
charge-sheet, we find that applicant nos.4 to
10 are close relatives of applicant nos.1 to
3. They are real brother, real sister,
964.20APPLN.odt
maternal uncle, wife of the maternal uncle,
cousin brother, cousin brother and wife of
cousin brother of applicant no.1
respectively. They reside, not with applicant
nos.1 to 3 but, separately at different
places. The allegations, as far as demand of
Rs.20,00,000/- for construction of the house
and harassment of respondent no.2 for
fulfillment of the said demand and also for
the reason of her not conceiving and
suspicion about her character, are common
allegations. No specific role attributed to
them. Their casual reference has been made in
the F.I.R., vis-a-vis, the statements of the
witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation. The details of harassment
meted out by them have not been given
anywhere in the F.I.R. and the statements of
witnesses. The allegations as far as
harassment on account of not conceiving and
giving her pills for prevention from
conception are inconsistent and contrary
allegations. Exactly, who had given such
pills and under what pretext, has not been
made clear in the F.I.R. The nature of
harassment is also not explained. Looking to
the period for which respondent no.2
cohabited with husband after the marriage,
964.20APPLN.odt
the allegations, as far as complicity of
applicant nos.4 to 10, who are close
relatives of applicant nos.1 to 3 in
harassment of respondent no.2 does not appear
to be at all probable. It was impossible for
applicant nos.4 to 10 to travel, either at
Bakshachi Wadi, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna or
Gangapur and join with applicant nos.1 to 3
for harassing respondent no.2, mentally and
physically by various ways and means, as
stated in the F.I.R.
11. In case of Geeta Mehrotra and
another V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and
another {(2012) 10 SCC 741}, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while explaining scope and
ambit of inherent powers contemplated in
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with reference to
matrimonial dispute, held as under:-
"Though the contents of the
complaint made out a prima facie
case against the husband of
Respondent 2 wife and some other
family members, but no such case
was made out against the appellant-
accused. There were no specific
allegations against the appellant -
accused (sister and brother of the
husband) so as to make them liable
for bickering between Respondent 2
wife and her husband. There was no
964.20APPLN.odt
specific allegation against the
appellant-acused that they demanded
any dowry from Respondent 2. Casual
reference to a large number of
members of the husband's family
without any allegation of active
involvement would not justify
taking cognizance against them and
subjecting them to trial.
Respondent 2 wife had obtained an
ex parte divorce decree against her
husband. This was also a relevant
fact. Under these conditions, the
High Court erred in not consdiering
the entire circumstances of the
case with regard to the appellant-
accused. It disposed of the matter
only on the issue of territorial
jurisdiction without even looking
at the other issues raised. Though
it was justified in not deciding
the issue of territorial
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
but it failed to apply its mind to
the case and determine whether the
appellant-accused be subjected to
trial. The High Court ought to have
considered that even if the trial
court had the jurisdiction to hold
the trial, the question still
remained as to whether the trial
against the appellant brother and
sister of the husband was fit to be
continued and whether that would
amount to abuse of process of
court. As the contents of the FIR
indicated that the appellant-
accused were casually referred to
and no prima facie case was made
out against them, in the absence of
specific allegations, criminal
proceedings against them are
964.20APPLN.odt
quashed without remanding the
matter to High Court for
reconsideration."
12. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir
Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and
others V/s State of Gujarat and another
{(2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the issue pertaining to
quashment of F.I.R./Criminal proceedings in
exercise of inherent powers covered by
section 482 of the Cr.P.C. held that, "the
section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an
overriding provision. The statute saves the
inherent power of the High Court, as a
superior court, to make such orders as are
necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to
secure the ends of justice."
Beside, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
laid down broad principles emerging from the
precedent on the subject of inherent powers
and they are as follows :-
"(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves
the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure
the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only
964.20APPLN.odt
recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the
jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or
a criminal proceeding on the ground
that a settlement has been arrived
at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the
invocation of jursidiction for the
purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the
power of the court is governed by
the provisions of Section 320 CrPC.
The power to quash under Section
482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion
whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise
of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised
(i) to secure the ends of justice,
or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
(5) The decision as to whether
a complaint or first information
report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim
have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
964.20APPLN.odt
exhaustive elaboration of
principles can be formulated.
(6) In the exercise of the
power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the
dispute has been settled, the High
Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence.
Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or
offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the
family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are,
truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such
cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious
offences.
(7) As distinguished from
serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element
of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the
exercise of the inherent power to
quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions
with an essentially civil flavour
may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
964.20APPLN.odt
(9) In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants,
the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a
criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above,
Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being
of the State have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private
disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in
an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained
of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance."
13. In view of details about
averments/allegations made in F.I.R./charge-
sheet, discussed in para supra, and the
scope, ambit and object of Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and
Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), we have no
hesitation to hold that no offence under
sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C.
is made out in the F.I.R. and charge-sheet
964.20APPLN.odt
against applicant nos.4 to 10. Their names
appear to have been mentioned in
F.I.R./charge-sheet without specifying their
involvement in the alleged demand of money
and harassment of respondent no.2 on that
count and on other counts. Thus, they appear
to have been involved in the case as they are
closely related to applicant nos.1 to 3.
Therefore, the F.I.R. and charge-sheet needs
to be quashed to their extent. With this, we
pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application No.964/2020 is
partly allowed.
(ii) F.I.R. No.0060/2020 registered on
27.02.2020 at Police Station, Ambad, Dist.
Jalna under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34
of the Indian Penal Code, and the Regular
Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No.249/2020,
pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Ambad are hereby
quashed to the extent of applicant nos.4 to
10 by invoking powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) The Criminal Application to the
964.20APPLN.odt
extent of applicant nos.1 to 3 stands
dismissed, as withdrawn.
(iv) The Criminal Application is disposed
of in the above terms.
(B.U.DEBADWAR,J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.)
SGA
