Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O. Devchand Deore And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2021
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
3752.19crapln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3752 OF 2019
MADHUKAR S/O. DEVCHAND DEORE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Mr S. D. Kotkar, Advocate for applicants;
Mr K. S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 17th March, 2021
PER COURT:
1. The learned Advocate for respondent No.2 had caused his
appearance on 14/01/2020. Thereafter, this matter was adjourned on a
few occasions. Today, none appears for respondent No.2.
2. The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that applicant
No.1 - Madhukar, applicant No. 2 - Chitrabai, applicant No.7 - Sonali,
applicant No.9 - Rajendra and applicant No.10 - Surekha, seek leave to
withdraw this application. In view of the same, this application is
disposed off, as withdrawn, on instructions, to the extent of applicant
Nos.1, 2, 7, 9 and 10.
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned
Advocate for the applicant Nos.3 to 6 and 8. We have also considered
3752.19crapln
the submissions of the leaned Prosecutor on behalf of respondent No.1.
The husband of the informant - respondent No.2, namely, Tushar
Deore, has not preferred an application for seeking quashing of the
first information report under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
4. We have gone through the first information report, threadbare
with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the applicants and the
learned Prosecutor. We find that there are plentiful allegations against
the husband Tushar and applicant Nos.1, 2, 7, 9 and 10. Specific
instances of mental and physical abuse, an assault and forcibly
dragging the applicant to person indulging in evil, aghori and black
magic, are set out in the first information report.
5. Applicant No.3 is the married sister of Tushar, who lives in
Vadodara, State of Gujarat. Applicant No.4 is the husband of
applicant No.3, residing in Vadodara. Applicant No.5 is the married
sister of Tushar, who lives with her husband, applicant No.6, in Taluka
and District Nasik. Applicant No.8 is the husband of applicant No.7 -
Sonali, who is the married sister of Tushar. However, there are
specific instances against applicant No.7 - Sonali, of having caused
mental and physical abuse to the informant. We find no allegations
against applicant Nos.3 to 6 and 8 having indulged in any physical or
3752.19crapln
mental harassment of the informant. There are stray instances of the
informant having stated that all the accused were disappointed with the
gifts given to them on 18/02/2018 at the time of her marriage with
Tushar. Beyond such vague allegations, we do not find any specific
allegation against applicant Nos.3 to 6 and 8.
6. The three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has
observed in the matter of R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
SC 866, that "cases may also arise where the the allegation in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged"
7. It was held in catena of judgments in the matters of Hem Raj &
anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 241 - paragraph 21, CBI
Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 - paragraph 20, State
of Maharashtra Vs. Ahmed Shekh Babajan, (2009) 14 SCC 267 -
paragraphs 24 and 26 and Hallu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1974) 4 SCC 300, that a first information report is merely a procedure
to set the criminal law in motion. A first information statement under
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should contain
allegations as regards commission of cognizable offence and need not
necessarily be given by a victim or even by the eye-witnesses.
3752.19crapln
8. In CBI Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh (supra), the Honourable Apex
Court held that a first information report is to be tendered to the SHO
of a Police Station so as to set the criminal law in motion and it need
not give all the ingredients of an offence, which would be fully
disclosed only after the conclusion of the investigation. It has been
held in paragraph 20 that, a first information report is not an
"encyclopedia".
9. In the State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh, 1987 SCC (Cri.)
621, the Honourable Apex Court held that the High Court had erred in
quashing the first information report by going beyond the averments
set out in the first information report, which could be considered to be
a collection of evidence and considering the merits of the case in
Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451,
the Honourable three Judges Bench of the Honourable Apex Court
held that they were surprised that the High Court thought that in it's
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
it could quash a first information report even before the police had
commenced investigation.
10. In the instant case, as recorded above, we find that no offence
has been made out against the applicant Nos.3 to 6 and 8. Though
3752.19crapln
applicant Nos.3 and 5 are the real sisters of husband Tushar, they are
already married and one resides with her husband at Vadodara and the
other resides with her husband in Nasik. All four of them have been
arraigned in the first information report, without any specific
allegation against them. Same is the case of applicant No.8, though
his wife applicant No.7 - sister of Tushar, faces specific allegations.
11. In view of the above, this application is partly allowed only to
the extent of applicant Nos.3 to 6 and 8. The first information report
to the extent of these applicants, namely, Hemlata Rajendra, Rajendra
Bapu, Bharti Bhushan, Bhushan Wamanrao and Sandeep Gangaram,
stands quashed.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
