Bombay High Court
Supriya Raju @ Rajkumar Biradar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
1434.20APPLN.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
905 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1434 OF 2020
Supriya Raju @ Rajkumar Biradar
Age : 25 years, Occ : HH,
R/o Gadgi, Tq. & Dist. Bidar
(Karnataka)
Now at Gokhalenagar, Pune
..APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sheetal w/o Vaibhav Dhumale
Age : 29 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Markhel, Tq. Degloor
now at Talgalli, Behind Ambikar Oil Mill,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for
applicant;
Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent No.1-
State;
Shri U.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent
no.2.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
AND
B.U.DEBADWAR,JJ.
DATE : 18th March, 2021
Judgment ( Per B.U. Debadwar, J.):
1. This is an application under section
1434.20APPLN.odt
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C."),
for quashing Regular Criminal Case
No.64/2020, arising out of the F.I.R.
no.62/2020, registered at Police Station,
Markhel, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, for the
offences punishable under sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(Hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C."),
pending in the Court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Degloor, Dist.Nanded
to the extent of applicant, who has been
arrayed therein as accused no.5.
2. Heard Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, the
learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr.U.B.
Deshmukh, the learned Advocate for respondent
no.2-first informant and Mr.K.S. Patil, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State.
3. Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, the learned
Advocate for the applicant, while taking us
through the paper book annexed to the
application, including copies of the charge-
sheet and the F.I.R., strenuously argued that
Mrs.Sheetal Vaibhav Dhumale/first informant
is the legally wedded wife of accused no.1 -
1434.20APPLN.odt
Vaibhav Anandrao Dhumale. Their marriage has
been solemnized on 18.02.2018 as per Hindu
Rites and Customs prevailing in their
community. The applicant is the married
sister of accused no.1 - Vaibhav Dhumale and
sister-in-law of the first informant. She has
been given in marriage at village Gadgi, Tq.
& Dist. Bidar. However, she resides at
Gokhalenagar, Pune along with her husband
Raju @ Rajkumar Biradar. Raju @ Rajkumar
Biradar carries business at Pune. Whereas,
the first informant Sau. Sheetal used to
reside at Markhel, Tq.Degloor, Dist. Nanded.
Markhel, Tq. Degloor is far away from Pune,
where the applicant resides with her husband.
The allegation made against the applicant in
the F.I.R. and charge-sheet are very much
scanty and vague. No details of mental
harassment of Sau.Sheetal by the applicant by
asking her to pay the amount demanded for
betterment of husband Vaibhav find place
either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of
any of the witnesses annexed to the charge-
sheet. Whatever, allegations of demand of
Rs.10,00,000/- and ill-treatment meted out to
Sau.Sheetal, for coercing her to fulfill the
said demand, are made against other accused,
who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law
1434.20APPLN.odt
and brother-in-law of Sau.Sheetal. Looking to
the facts that the applicant is married woman
resides far away from village Markhel along
with her husband, the question of her
ill-treating Sau.Sheetal for any reason does
not arise. The applicant has been involved in
the case only to harass her, as she is a
sister of accused nos.1 and 4 and the
daughter of accused nos.2 and 3. Having
regard to the nature of the allegations,
absolutely there is no possibility of
conviction of the applicant in criminal case.
Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by
compelling her to face the trial, which
ultimately will result in her acquittal.
According to Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, learned
Advocate, this is a fit case, wherein the
impugned F.I.R. and charge-sheet can be
quashed to the extent of applicant by
invoking powers under section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
4. Per-contra, Mr.U.B. Deshmukh, the
learned Advocate for respondent no.2
vehemently argued that the applicant is very
closely related to other accused. She is the
real sister of Vaibhav, who happens to be the
husband of first informant Sheetal. Mother
1434.20APPLN.odt
and father of Sau.Sheetal died in the year
2000 and 2004 respectively. She was brought
up, educated and maintained by her maternal
uncle-Deepak Devidas Deshmukh, resident of
Talgalli, Degloor. Mr.Deepak Devidas Deshmukh
performed the marriage of Sheetal with
accused no.1 Vaibhav in February, 2018. He
gave not only Rs.10,00,000/- to accused no.1
- Vaibhav but also gave gold ornaments of 10
tola gold, silver and utensils to him, at the
time of marriage towards dowry. Though
Sheetal was serving in A.P.M.C., Degloor, as
a junior clerk and earning salary, inspite of
giving huge dowry and performing marriage in
the best possible manner, shortly, after the
marriage, all the accused started harassing
and ill-treating Sheetal for coercing her to
bring Rs.10,00,000/- more for commencing
business and engaging accused Vaibhav in the
said business. The allegations made in the
F.I.R. and charge-sheet against all the
accused, including the applicant are specific
allegations. The F.I.R. and charge-sheet
makes out a prima facie case under section
498-A against the applicant. Therefore, the
charge-sheet cannot be quashed to the extent
of applicant by invoking inherent powers
under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
1434.20APPLN.odt
5. Mr.K.S. Patil, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
no.1 - State adopted almost all arguments
advanced by Mr.U.B. Deshmukh, learned
Advocate and submitted that after due
investigation, the applicant along with other
accused have been charge-sheeted. Therefore,
the contention of the applicant that there is
no prima facie case against her holds no
water.
6. In the light of aforesaid
submissions made at the Bar by the learned
Advocates representing the parties, we have
carefully gone through the impugned charge-
sheet including F.I.R. lodged by Sau.Sheetal.
7. It is pertinent to note that on the
basis of F.I.R. dated 06.04.2020, lodged by
Sheetal Vaibhav Dhumale, the law was set in
motion and after completion of investigation,
in all five persons, including the applicant
have been charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under section 498-A, 323, 324, 504
and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.
8. The F.I.R. demonstrates that the
1434.20APPLN.odt
marriage of Sau.Sheetal with accused no.1 -
Vaibhav solemnized on 18.02.2018 at Markhel,
Tq.Degloor. The accused are husband, father-
in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and
married sister-in-law of first informant-
Sau.Sheetal. After the marriage, only for
about two months, the accused behaved with
Sheetal properly. However, thereafter, demand
of Rs.10,00,000/- was made for commencing the
business for accused no.1 - Vaibhav and
accused nos.1 to 4 started coercing her to
fulfill their demands. Accused no.1 -
Vaibhav, accused no.2 - Anandarao, accused
no.3 - Ujwalabai and accused no.4 - Sachin
intermittently used to abuse her. After the
Nagpanchami festival of 2018, the accused
asked Sau.Sheetal, if she wants to come back
to matrimonial house from maternal uncle's
house, she should come along with
Rs.10,00,000/-, otherwise, she will not be
allowed to cohabit and reside with husband -
Vaibhav at Markhel. Inspite of giving
understanding no change took place in the
attitude and conduct of the accused. Sau.
Sheetal did not lodge the report to the
Police with a hope that the accused will
change their attitude and conduct by a
passage of time. Meanwhile, she became
1434.20APPLN.odt
pregnant and went to her maternal uncle's
house for delivery. After delivery, the
maternal uncle of Sheetal requested accused
nos.1 and 2 to take Sheetal to their house
with newly born baby, to which, they refused,
saying that unless their demand of
Rs.10,00,000/- is fulfilled, they will not
take Sheetal to their house. When every
efforts failed, Sheetal approached the Police
Station and lodged the report.
9. The statement of almost all the
witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation and annexed to the charge-sheet
are identical with the F.I.R. Allegations
made against the applicant are limited to the
extent that whenever she used to come to her
parental house at Markhel, she used to tell
Sheetal to fulfill the demand of money made
by accused nos.1 to 4, as it is made for
betterment of her husband.
10. The details of visits of applicant
to Markhel does not find place, either in the
F.I.R. or in the statements of any of the
witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation. In the absence of details
about visits of the applicant to her parental
1434.20APPLN.odt
house at Markhel and looking to the period of
stay of Sheetal with her matrimonial house at
Markhel, which is very short one i.e. about
10 months, it is very difficult to accept the
contentions of respondent no.2 that an
offence is made out under section 498-A
against the applicant. When it is clear from
the record that the allegations made in the
F.I.R. and charge-sheet, as far as the
applicant, is concerned are very much scanty
and vague, there would be no propriety in
dragging the applicant to face the trial.
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
1434.20APPLN.odt
for bickering between Respondent 2
wife and her husband. There was no
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
1434.20APPLN.odt
specific allegations, criminal
proceedings against them are
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
1434.20APPLN.odt
the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only
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
1434.20APPLN.odt
ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
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
1434.20APPLN.odt
for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
(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 against the applicant, 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 cases of Geeta
Mehrotra and Parbatbhai Aahir (supra), we
have no hesitation to hold that the name of
1434.20APPLN.odt
the applicant has been mentioned in the
F.I.R. and charge-sheet without specifying
her active involvement in the alleged demand
of money and harassment of respondent no.2 on
that count and on other counts. Thus, she
appears to have been involved in the case
only to harass her for the reason that she is
sister of accused no.1 (husband of the first
informant).
14. In view of above no fruitful purpose
would be served by compelling respondent no.2
to face trial. As such, the charge-sheet
needs to be quashed to her extent. With this,
we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) Regular Criminal Case No.64/2020,
arising out of the F.I.R. no.62/2020,
registered at Police Station, Markhel,
Tq.Degloor, Dist. Nanded, for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in
the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Degloor, Dist.Nanded, is hereby
1434.20APPLN.odt
quashed to the extent of applicant by
invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) The Criminal Application is disposed
off in the above terms.
(B.U.DEBADWAR,J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J.)
SGA
