Vijayalaxmi Dineshchandra @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 15068 Bom

                                              CRIAPL517-2020.DOC
                                                           Santosh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


           CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 517 OF 2020

1. Vijayalaxmi Dineshchandra @
   Balasaheb Aragade
   Age - 53 years, Occu. -
   R/at B-1503, Shreeji Heights Chs Ltd.,
   Plot No.1A, B, C Sec.46-A, Seawoods,
   Navi Mumbai
2. Dineshchandra @ Balasahbe
   Shankarrao Argade,
   Age : 60 yrs. Occu. -
   R/at Flat No.605, "A" Building,
   Deshpande Durg, ICS Colony,
   Pune 411 007
3. Mrs. Sonal @ Bhagyashri Rupesh Gund
   Age : 31 yrs. Occu. Housewife
   R/at Plot No.107/B, Varad Villa, Rao
   Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Taluka
   Maval, Dist Pune 410 506
4. Mrs. Mrudula Yogesh Bhagat
   Age : 30 yrs. Occ : Housewife
   Add. SN/60/A/2/1B, Ganga Melrose,
   A502, B. T. Kawade Road Near Mid Town
   Society, Ghorpadi Gaon, Pune 411 001           ...Appellants

                     Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
   (At the instance Khadaki Police Station,
   Pune City)
2. Pradnya Diraj Argade
   Age 30 years, Occu. Nil
   Pandurang Niwas, Survey No.112,
   Sutarwadi, Pashan, Khadaki, Pune City.       ...Respondents


Mr. Vijay Patil, i/b Ms. Manisha Devkar, for the Appellants.
Mr. Abhijeet Desai, i/b Desai Legal, for respondent no.2.
Mr. S. R. Shinde, APP for the State.

                              1/24
                                                      CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

                                CORAM: S. S. SHINDE &
                                    N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON: 18th AUGUST, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON: 20th OCTOBER, 2021.

JUDGMENT:- [PER : N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the

consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally, at the

stage of admission.

2. By virtue of this application under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") the applicants, who are

the relatives of the husband of respondent no.2 - the first

informant, seek the quashment of First Informant Report

No.351 of 2020 ("FIR") registered with Khadaki Police Station,

Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

("the Penal Code"), at the instance of the respondent no.2 - the

first informant, qua the applicants.

3. The background facts can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The marriage of the first informant - Pradnya was

solemnized with Dheeraj (A1) on 29th November, 2009.

Applicant no.2 - Dineshchandra is the father of Dheeraj (A1).

Applicant no.3 - Sonal and applicant no.4 - Mrudula are the

married sisters of Dheeraj (A1). Applicant no.1 - Vijayalaxmi is

the mother of Dheeraj (A1). The marriage of applicant nos.1 and

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

2 was solemnized in the year 2010, post the marriage of the first

informant and Dheeraj (A1).

(b) The applicants aver that Dheeraj (A1) and the first

informant were not at all happy with the marriage of applicant

nos.1 and 2 and, thus, applicant nos.1 and 2 resided separately

from the accused nos.1 and the first informant, since beginning

of the marital life of applicant nos.1 and 2. According to the

applicants, the marital life of the first informant and Dheeraj

(A1) was afflicted with discord since inception as the first

informant entertained a strong suspicion that Dheeraj (A1) had

extramarital affairs. However, the applicants had no occasion to

be part of, much less interfere with, the matrimonial life of

Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant. Applicant nos.3 and 4,

who are the married sisters of accused no.1 never resided with

Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant. All the applicants have

been residing separately from Dheeraj (A1) and the first

informant. As the marital discord had been continual and

reached its peak in the year 2020, the applicants have been

roped in with an oblique motive.

(c) The applicants assert that false and baseless

allegations have been made against the applicants for the only

reason that they are the relatives of Dheeraj (A1) so as to bring

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

Dheeraj (A1) and the applicants to terms. In the backdrop of

the sound financial position of applicant no.2, there was no

cause or occasion for applicant no.2 to make the alleged

unlawful demand. Nor applicant no.1, who entered the family

frame, as the second wife of applicant no.2, after the marriage of

Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant, had ever played the role

attributed to her by the first informant. In the backdrop of the

allegations in the FIR, according to the applicants, no prima

facie case is made out for the offences for which the applicants

have been arraigned. In such circumstances, the applicants

cannot be compelled to undergo the rigours of trial. It would

amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this

application for quashment of the FIR and the consequent

proceedings.

4. We have heard Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel for the

applicants, Mr. S. R. Shinde, the learned APP for the State and

Mr. Abhijeet Desai, the learned Counsel for the first

informant/respondent no.2, at length. With the assistance of

the learned Counsels for the parties, we have perused the

material on record.

5. Before we advert to note the rival submissions canvassed

across the bar, we deem it appropriate to notice the gravamen of

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

indictment, especially against the applicants, as borne out by

the allegations in the FIR.

I] The tenor of the FIR is that, post marriage, the initial

cause of the discord between Dheeraj (A1) and the first

informant was the alleged neglect on the part of Dheeraj (A1).

The first informant alleged that Dheeraj (A1) returned home late,

spent unreasonably long time on mobile phone and chatting

etc., and abused and assaulted her, when she questioned

Dheeraj (A1). Applicant nos.1 and 2 did not intervene despite

grievances having been made to them. The first informant

further alleged that, after few months of marriage, Dheeraj (A1)

and applicant no.2 demanded her to bring money from her

father on one or the other pretext. Few demands were met.

Emboldened Dheeraj (A1) and applicant no.2 demanded the first

informant to bring an amount of Rupees One Crore from her

father to purchase land and a Mercedes car. Upon her failure to

meet the said demand, Dheeraj (A1) allegedly abused, assaulted

and attempted to throttle her. In the year 2014, her father paid

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to Dheeraj

(A1).

II] The first informant further alleged that, despite passage of

time, there was no improvement in the behaviour of Dheeraj

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

(A1). The latter continued to indulge in intoxication and return

home late. When the first informant remonstrated, Dheeraj (A1)

beat her. Applicant no.2 also did not pay heed to the complaints

of the first informant regarding the extramarital affairs of

Dheeraj (A1). Instead, applicant no.2 attempted to justify such

dalliance. The first informant alleged that even applicant nos.1,

3 and 4 did not make effort to rein in Dheeraj (A1) despite

grievances being made before them. On the contrary, applicant

no.4 Mrudula threatened the first informant not to raise such

issues. She was insulted by applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 for not

begetting the child. On 16th April, 2020, applicant no.3 Sonal

had allegedly came to reside with the first informant and

Dheeraj (A1). When the first informant complained about the

promiscuous behaviour of Dheeraj (A1), applicant no.3 instead

of prevailing upon Dheeraj (A1) to behave himself, tried to justify

his misconduct and again insulted her for not begetting the

child.

III] The first informant further alleged that on 1 st June, 2020,

accused no.1 assaulted her on the count that she did not cook

food for his friend, who had came to their house for drinks, and

turned her out of the matrimonial home. Her father and father-

in-law, applicant no.1, came thereat, and they approached the

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

Khadaki Police Station and lodged NC complaint. Enraged by

the reporting of the matter to police, Dheeraj (A1) refused to

allow the first informant rejoin the matrimonial home despite

efforts by relatives and well-wishers. Hence, the first informant

approached the Bharosa Cell (Grievance Redressal Cell) at the

office of Commissioner of Police, Pune. However, Dheeraj (A1)

and his relatives did not appear for counseling. Hence, the first

informant lodged the report on 29 th October, 2020 leading to CR

No.351/2020.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid nature of the allegations

against the applicants, Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the

applicants advanced multi-fold submissions. First and foremost,

the allegations in the FIR taken at their face value and in their

entirety, do not make out the offence punishable under Section

498A of the Penal Code qua the applicants. Secondly, in the

face of an indisputable position that the applicants have been

residing separately from respondent no.2 and her husband,

since many years, the allegations of matrimonial cruelty against

the applicants are simply absurd and improbable. Thirdly, from

the tenor of the allegations in the FIR, it becomes clear that the

thrust of the grievance is against the husband, Dheeraj (A1).

Fourthly, according to Mr. Patil the instant FIR is but another

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

instance of roping in the family members of the husband in the

wake of the matrimonial discord, for no rhyme or reason.

Lastly, the time-lag of almost 11 years from the date of marriage

erodes the potency of the allegations against the applicants,

even if those allegations are taken at par. Continuation of the

proceedings on the basis of such allegations, according to Mr.

Patil, would cause grave injustice to the applicants.

7. Per contra, Mr. Shinde, the learned APP, would urge that

there are clear and categorical allegations against the

applicants. The first informant has alleged in no uncertain

terms that even applicant no.2 had made unlawful demand of

property. Part of the demand was met. Moreover, there are

allegations to the effect that the applicants instead of

supporting the first informant, took the side of Dheeraj (A1),

even where grave allegations of abuse, harassment under the

influence of liquor, and extramarital dalliance were made. The

said conduct on the part of the applicants, according to Mr.

Shinde, would fall within the ambit of matrimonial cruelty

under Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A of the Penal

Code.

8. Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel the first informant, also

forcefully countered the submissions on behalf of the

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

applicants. Taking the Court through the allegations in the FIR,

Mr. Desai made an endeavour to demonstrate that there are

specific allegations against each of the applicants. The claim of

the applicants that they have been residing separately from

Dheeraj (A1) and the first informant was stated to be sans any

material in justification thereof. Mr. Desai further urged that, at

this juncture, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations

cannot be delved into. The inquiry is limited to ascertain the

existence of allegations which prima facie make out the offences

arraigned against the applicants. According to Mr. Desai, the

allegations in the FIR, make out the offences against all the

applicants and, therefore, this Court would not be justified in

interjecting the prosecution at this stage, when the investigation

is still underway. Mr. Desai would urge that the period of 10

long years for which the first informant suffered harassment at

the hands of her husband and the applicants cannot be

construed against the first informant. On the contrary, it shows

a continual case of harassment of a married woman.

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions.

10. To begin with, it is necessary to note that from the perusal

of the allegations in the FIR, which we have noted in a little

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

detail, it becomes evident that the allegations are primarily

against Dheeraj (A1). The moot cause for the matrimonial

discord was the alleged licentious and promiscuous conduct of

Dheeraj (A1). Ill-treatment was allegedly meted out to the first

informant when she questioned and resisted the alleged

promiscuous conduct of Dheeraj (A1). In addition, the first

informant alleged that Dheeraj (A1) made unlawful demand of

money. The demands were met on few occasions. However,

unsatiated Dheeraj (A1) continued to make unlawful demand of

money and harassed the first informant.

11. In the context of the prayer for quashment, qua the

applicants, it would be necessary to note the allegations

attributed to the applicants. The broad allegations against the

applicants are:

Applicant No.2:

(i) After few months of marriage applicant no.2 joined

Dheeraj (A1) in making unlawful demand of money. Applicant

no.2 and Dheeraj (A1) allegedly made a demand of Rupees One

Crore to purchase the land and a Mercedes car.

(ii) The first informant further alleged that Dheeraj (A1) and

applicant no.2 raked up quarrels with her, and abused her for

not meeting the unlawful demand of money. Applicant no.2 did

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

not pay heed to the complaints of the first informant regarding

the licentious and promiscuous conduct of Dheeraj (A1) and

threatened the first informant not to raise the said issue.

Applicant No.1:

(iii) As regards applicant no.1, there are two allegations. One,

applicant no.1 abused the first informant by deliberately picking

up faults in the food cooked by the first informant. Two, in one

of the such quarrels, over cooking the food, applicant no.1 had

allegedly slapped the first informant.

Applicant No.4:

(vi) Whenever applicant no.4 visited the matrimonial home of

the first informant, she abused the first informant over the

household work and humiliated her by stating that there must

be some defect in her and, thus, she could not conceive. At

another occasion, when Dheeraj (A1) had returned home late in

an intoxicated state, even upon being complained against the

applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 did not take the side of the first

informant. On the contrary, applicant no.4 intimidated her, and

humiliated for not begetting the child.

Applicant No.3:

(v) As against applicant no.3, the first informant alleged that

on 16th April 2020, applicant no.3 had been to her matrimonial

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

home. When the first informant related to applicant no.3 that

the cruelty perpetrated by Dheeraj (A1) has become unbearable,

applicant no.3 Sonal justified the behaviour of Dheeraj (A1) and

insulted her for not begetting child.

12. In the backdrop of aforesaid nature of the accusations,

qua the applicants, the crucial question which comes to the fore

is whether the aforesaid allegations, even if taken at par, would

warrant the prosecution of one or more of the applicants.

Cruelty under Section 498A of the Penal Code has a definite

legal connotation. Undoubtedly, the Explanation to Section

498A, expands the scope of matrimonial cruelty. It is not

restricted to physical cruelty. The element of mental cruelty,

which often has a more deleterious impact on the mind of a

married woman, is subsumed in the definition of cruelty.

13. It is trite, ordinary quarrels, difference of views and wear

and tear of life, which every home invariably witnesses, do not

fall within the mischief of cruelty punishable under Section

498A of the Penal Code. To fall within the dragnet of Section

498A, the illtreatment meted out to a married women ought to

be of the specified nature. Thus, to fall within the tentacles of

Section 498A, the married woman must have been subjected to

cruelty, which would drive the woman to commit suicide or to

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or with a

view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet an

unlawful demand of property. In the latter case, mere demand

of money or property, unaccompanied by any harassment, may

not fall within the mischief of Section 498A of the Penal Code.

There has to be a nexus between the unlawful demand and the

consequent harassment.

14. At this juncture, a profitable reference can be made to a

Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of Bhaskarlal Sharma and another vs. Monica and others1 for

two purposes. First, in the said case, the Supreme Court

expounded the import of 'cruelty' envisaged by Section 498A of

the Penal Code. Second, the Supreme Court indicated the

scope of inquiry while considering the prayer for quashment.

The observations in paragraphs 9 to 11 are instructive and,

hence, extracted below:

"9. Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the appellants has urged that the statements/averments made in the complaint petition, even if taken to be correct, do not make out any offence against any of the accused appellants either under Sections 498A or 406 of the Penal Code, as alleged. Shri Sharan has laid stress on the fact that there is no averment in the complaint petition with regard to any demand for dowry by the appellants; or of any ill-treatment of the respondent by the appellants or commission of any act in connection with any such demand which could amount to 'cruelty' within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Shri Sharan has also urged that no where in the complaint petition entrustment within the meaning of Section 405 of

1 (2014) 3 SCC 383.

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC the Penal Code has been alleged against the appellants so as to even prima facie make the appellants liable for the offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code.

10. We disagree. 'Cruelty' as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A of the Penal Code has a twofold meaning. The contentions of Shri Sharan do not deal with the Explanation

(a) and is exclusively confined to the meaning dealt with by Explanation (b). Under Explanation (a) conduct which is likely to cause injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) would come within the meaning of the expression "cruelty". While instances of physical torture would be plainly evident from the pleadings, conduct which has caused or is likely to cause mental injury would be far more subtle. Having given our anxious consideration to the averments made in the complaint petition, we are of the view that the statements made in the relevant paragraphs of the complaint can be understood as containing allegations of mental cruelty to the complainant. The complaint, therefore, cannot be rejected at the threshold.

11. The facts, as alleged, therefore will have to be proved which only be done in the course of a regular trial. It is wholly unnecessary for us to embark upon a discourse as regards the scope and ambit of the Court's power to quash a criminal proceeding. Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence."

(emphasis supplied)

15. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of the legal

position, readverting to the facts of the case, in our view, the

allegations against applicant no.2, on the one part, and

applicant nos.1, 3 and 4, on the other part, stand on a different

footing. As against applicant no.2, there are allegations of

making unlawful demand of money along with Dheeraj (A1).

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

Whereas the allegations against applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 are

relatable to clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A.

16. As regards applicant nos.3 and 4 the centrality of the

allegation is that they harassed the first informant when they

visited her matrimonial home. A fair reading of the FIR, in its

entirety, does not indicate even remotely that the applicant

nos.3 and 4 were residing with Dheeraj (A1) when the first

informant entered the matrimonial home. Nor any allegations

are made against applicant nos.3 and 4, which have an element

of proximity to the date of marriage. An inference thus becomes

inescapable that applicant nos.3 and 4, the married sisters of

Dheeraj (A1), have all along been residing separately from the

first informant and Dheeraj (A1).

17. As indicated above, the first informant endeavoured to

agitate her grievances about the alleged licentious and

promiscuous conduct of Dheeraj (A1). The allegations against

applicant nos.3 and 4 are that they did not make effort to rein

in Dheeraj (A1). At the highest, applicant nos.3 and 4, allegedly

justified such unprincipled behaviour of Dheeraj (A1). This

allegation, even if taken at par, does not fall within the dragnet

of Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A. Applicant

nos.3 and 4 might have failed to exercise sobering influence, as

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

sisters, over Dheeraj (A1). However, the said omission hardly

amounts to mental cruelty emanating from applicant nos.3 and

4.

18. Apart from the aforesaid grievance, applicant no.4 had

allegedly once abused the first informant over the household

work, and applicant nos.3 and 4 had insulted the first

informant for not begetting the child. In our view, these

allegations are required to considered in the entirety of the

setting of the matter. The shared marital life is of about 11

years. Viewed through this prism, the allegations appear stray

and lack the element of certainty. Even otherwise, the

allegations do not have the propensity to fall within the meaning

of mental cruelty envisaged by Clause (a) of the Explanation to

Section 498A.

19. The case against applicant no.1 stands on a much weaker

foundation. Applicant no.1 had allegedly picked up quarrel with

the first informant and abused her over the quality of food

cooked by the first informant. The two instances, attributed to

applicant no.1, over the span of the decade long marital life of

the first informant with Dheeraj (A1), by no stretch of

imagination, can be construed as such willful conduct which

would drive the married woman to commit suicide or cause

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

injury or danger to her life or limb. These quarrels between the

first informant and applicant no.1 do not traverse beyond the

ordinary wear and tear of the marital life.

20. At this stage, the submission on behalf of the applicants

that they have been roped in mala fide and to wreck vengeance

for being the relatives of Dheeraj (A1), warrants consideration. It

is judicially recognized that there is a tendency to rope in as

many persons from the family of the husband as possible de

hors their involvement in the alleged harassment. Often, in the

wake of marital discord, the allegations fly thick and fast. In the

anxiety to bring the husband to justice, for the alleged acts of

ill-treatment and harassment, it is often seen, attempts are

made to rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible.

The Courts are required to be on guard against the unwarranted

prosecution of the relations of the husband, who have had no

role in the matrimonial dispute and the consequent cruelty.

21. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to a

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta &

Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2, wherein the following

observations were made :

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.

2     (2010) 7SCC 667

                                                         CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

.................

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."

(emphasis supplied)

22. In the case of Ramesh and Ors. Vs. State of T.N. 3,

where the allegations were made against the married sister of

the informant's husband, who did not share the matrimonial

home with the first informant, the Supreme Court observed that

the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law seem to

suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the

husband's relations as possible.

23. The aforesaid pronouncement was followed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.4. In the facts of the said case, the

Supreme Court observed as under :-

3     (2005) 3 SCC 507
4     (2012) 10 SCC 741

                                                     CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding."

(emphasis supplied)

24. In a recent pronouncement in the case of K. Subba Rao

& Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana, Rep. Its Secretary,

Department of Home & Ors.5, the Supreme Court again

administered a note of caution, in the following words :

"The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

(emphasis supplied)

25. A useful reference can also be made to the judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Chopra vs. State of

U.P. and another6 on which a strong reliance was placed by the

learned Counsel for the applicants.

26. Mr. Patil laid emphasis on the following observations in

paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment:

"24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016) dt. 21st August 2018 6 AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2297.

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC against the appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra.

25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. "they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore" and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother's sister and husband of mother's sister have been roped in clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass the applicants. Further, prior to filing of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. there was no complaint at any point of time by the girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of the applicants. When both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika started living separately since November, 2013, had there been any dowry demand or harassment the girl would have given complaint to Police or any other authority............"

27. It was urged by Mr. Patil that as the marital bond

between the first informant and Dheeraj (A1) is strained to the

point of breakdown, the first informant has falsely roped in the

applicants.

28. We have analyzed the allegations qua each of the

applicants. So far as applicant nos.1, 3 and 4, on a bare

perusal of the FIR, in the backdrop of the time-lag between

commencement of the marital relationship between the first

informant and Dheeraj (A1) and the fact that applicant nos.3

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

and 4 have been residing separately all along, we are of the

considered view that their implication is an instance of the

aforesaid anxiety to drag the relations of the husband. This

factor, if considered in conjunction with the bald, vague and

general allegations against the applicant nos.1, 3 and 4, leads to

an irresistable inference that the initiation of the prosecution

against applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 was actuated by a design to

harass them and exert pressure upon Dheeraj (A1) to come to

terms. In the light of the situation which thus obtains, it would

be plainly unjust to compel the applicant nos.1, 3 and 4 to face

rigours of investigation and likely prosecution for the offences

for which they have been arraigned. It would amount to abuse of

the process of the Court. Conversely, the interest of the justice

would be secured by quashing the proceeding against applicant

nos.1, 3 and 4.

29. As against applicant no.2, indicated above, apart from

the allegations of not paying heed to the first informant's

complaints against the promiscuous conduct of Dheeraj (A1)

and, at times, justifying such behaviour, there are clear

allegations of making unlawful demand of money. There are

allegations to the effect that there were unlawful demands of

money on multiple occasions. The first informant has

specifically alleged that the applicant no.2 and Dheeraj (A1)

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

jointly made a demand of an amount of Rupees One Crore to

purchase the land and Mercedes car. Applicant no.2 allegedly

harassed the first informant on account of failure to meet the

unlawful demand. Thus, there are allegations of both unlawful

demand as well as harassment on the failure of the first

informant to meet the demand.

30. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicants, made

an earnest endeavour to draw home the point that applicant

no.2 alongwith applicant no.1 have been residing separately

from the first informant and Dheeraj (A1), since long. Moreover,

applicant no.2 had accompanied the first informant and her

father to lodge report against Dheeraj (A1). To bolster up this

submission, our attention was invited to the averments in the

FIR to the effect that on 1st June, 2020, the applicant no.2 had

accompanied the first informant and her father to lodge report

against his son Dheeraj (A1). Reliance was also placed on the

general diary Entry No.007, dated 2 nd June, 2020 at Khadaki

Police Station, made on the basis of the report of first informant,

to the effect that Dheeraj (A1) had abused applicant no.2 on

phone, as well.

31. We are afraid to accede to the submissions on behalf of

applicant no.2. At this juncture, in the backdrop of the

allegations in the FIR, qua applicant no.2, which clearly fall

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

within the ambit of cruelty defined in Section 498A of the Penal

Code, especially the specific allegations of unlawful demand and

consequent harassment for failure to meet the demands, we find

it rather difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the allegations

against applicant no.2, as they stand, do not make out a case

for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Penal

Code.

32. The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that the

application deserves to be allowed qua applicant nos.1, 3 and 4.

However, we are not persuaded to quash the proceeding against

applicant no.2 Dineshchandra @ Balasaheb Shankarrao Argade.

33. Hence, the following order.

:Order:

(i) The application stands partly allowed.

(ii) FIR No.351 of 2020, registered with Khadaki Police

Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

the Penal Code stands quashed against applicant

no.1 Vijayalaxmi, applicant no.3 Sonal and applicant

no.4 Mrudula.

(iii) The application of applicant no.2 Dineshchandra

stands rejected.

(iv) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to carry out

CRIAPL517-2020.DOC

investigation qua applicant no.2 and take further

action in accordance with law.

(v) We make it clear that the aforesaid consideration is

confined to prayer for quashment of the FIR and the

Investigating Agency and the Court, in the event of

trial, shall not be influenced by any of the

observations made hereinabove, in the further

proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid FIR.

                      [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]                    [S. S. SHINDE, J.]



SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2021.10.20
17:52:59 +0530