Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mangala Ramdas Medhane And Ors on 20 October, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 1/25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
SHRADDHA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date:
2021.10.20
18:20:08
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2020
+0530
1) Sau. Mangala Ramdas Medhane, ]
Age - 38 years, Occ :- Household, ]
2) Mr. Ramdas Karbhari Medhane, ]
Age-42 Years, Occ : Business, ]
]
3) Mrs. Gayatri Ganesh Aringale ]
Age-33 Years, Occ : Household, ]
4) Mr. Ganesh Dattatray Aringale, ]
Age-41 Years, Occ : Business, ]
5) Mrs. Amruta Dhananjay ]
Arignale, ]
Age-41 Years, Occ : Household, ]
Nos.3 to 5, all residing at ]
Laxmi Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik ]
]
6) Mr. Prakash Balasaheb Shelke, ]
Age-32 Years, Occ : Business, ]
7) Mr. Sharad Waman Tambe ]
Age-36 Years, Occ : Agriculturist, ] Petitioners
].. (Orig. Accused)
Both R/a : Mhasrli, Tal. Igatpuri,
]
Nashik
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra ]
(to be served through offce of ]
learned P. P. High Court, ]
Mumbai) ]
2) Mrs. Rohini Vikas Matale, ]...
Age : 25 Years, Occ. : Housewife, ] Respondents
R/at : Ambika Nagar, ] (Orig.
Kamatwade, ] Complainant)
Tal. & Dist. : Nashik. ]
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 2/25
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1641 OF 2021
(Permission for fling chargesheet)
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 193 OF 2020
1. The State OF Maharashtra ] Applicant
(Through Niphad Police Station, ] (Orig.
Nashik) ].. Respondent
] No.1.)
Versus
1) Sau. Mangala Ramdas Medhane, ]
Age - 38 years, Occ :- Household, ]
2) Mr. Ramdas Karbhari Medhane, ]
Age-42 Years, Occ : Business, ]
]
3) Mrs. Gayatri Ganesh Aringale ]
Age-33 Years, Occ : Household, ]
4) Mr. Ganesh Dattatray Aringale, ]
Age-41 Years, Occ : Business, ]
5) Mrs. Amruta Dhananjay ]
Arignale, ]
Age-41 Years, Occ : Household, ]
Nos.3 to 5, all residing at ]
Laxmi Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik ]
]
6) Mr. Prakash Balasaheb Shelke, ]
Age-32 Years, Occ : Business, ]
7) Mr. Sharad Waman Tambe ] Respondents/
Age-36 Years, Occ : Agriculturist, ] (Orig.
].. Petitioners/ Orig.
Both R/a : Mhasrli, Tal. Igatpuri,
] Accused)
Nashik.
AND
1) Mrs. Rohini Vikas Matale, ] Formal
Age : 25 Years, Occ. : Housewife, ] Respondent
R/at : Ambika Nagar, ] (Orig.
Kamatwade, ] Complainant/Ori
Tal. & Dist. : Nashik. ]... g. Respondent
] No.2)
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 3/25
***
Mr. Amey Deshpande for petitioners and for respondents in
IA/1641/2021.
Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for State in WP/193/2020 and for applicant in
IA/1641/2021.
Mr.Sachin Gite for respondent No.2.
***
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
Reserved for Judgment on : 11TH AUGUST 2021
Judgment Pronounced on : 20th OCTOBER 2021
JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the counsels of the parties, heard fnally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the
Code') is preferred to quash and set aside the FIR No. 274 of 2019,
registered with Niphad Police Station, Nashik for the offences
punishable under sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code'), lodged at the
instance of respondent No.2-frst informant.
3. The background facts leading to this petition can be
summarized as under :-
a) The marriage of Mrs. Rohini Vikas Matale
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 4/25
(hereinafter referred to as 'the frst informant') was
solemnized with Vikas Balasaheb Matale, who is an
Advocate, by profession, on 18th June 2018. Petitioner
Nos.1 to 5 and 7 claimed to be the relatives of Vikas.
Petitioner No.6 is the friend of Vikas. The petitioners
have been arraigned alongwith Vikas, his parents and
brothers.
(b) The gravamen of indictment against the accused is
that, within weeks of the marriage, there was marital
discord as the frst informant noticed that the accused
No.1 used to surreptitiously speak with a girl on phone.
Upon being confronted, accused No.1 gave evasive
answers and assaulted the frst informant. When the
accused No.1-Vikas had came to her paternal home to
fetch the frst informant back, he asked her to demand
Rs.10 lakh from her father to acquire an offce for his
profession. The frst informant expressed her inability to
make such demand citing the huge expenses incurred by
her father for the marriage.
(c) After a couple of days of her return to the
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 5/25
matrimonial home, the accused No.1, his parents and
brothers abused and insulted her for not making the
said demand. Enraged by the non-compliance of the
demand, the accused No.1 dropped the frst informant at
her paternal home on 2nd November 2018. On 4th
November 2018, her father and uncle brought her back
to the matrimonial home and pacifed her husband and
in-laws.
(d) The frst informant further alleged that the
petitioner No.6-Prakash Shelke, the friend of the accused
No.1 made a call to her father demanding the payment of
Rs.10 lakh, lest accused No.1 would not allow the frst
informant to cohabit with him. When the frst informant
related the said incident to accused No.1, the latter
assaulted her and made her to starve.
(e) On 9th November 2018, petitioner No.1-Sau.
Mangala, her husband Ramdas- petitioner No.2,
petitioner No.3-Gayatri, her husband Ganesh-petitioner
No.4, petitioner No.5-Amruta and petitioner No.7
Sharad, the maternal cousin of accused No.1-Vikas
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 6/25
allegedly came to matrimonial home of the frst
informant on the occasion of Dipavali and threatened her
to bring the amount of Rs.10 Lakh from her father lest
she would face the consequences.
(f) The frst informant further alleged that on 2 nd
January 2019, accused No.1-Vikas, his parents and
brothers harassed her over her failure to met the
demand of Rs.10 Lakh and she was turned out of the
matrimonial home. She went to her paternal home along
with her uncle Rangnath Date.
(g) On 9th January 2019, a meeting was held at
the matrimonial home, in which relatives from both the
sides were present. The frst informant alleged that the
accused reiterated demand of Rs.10 Lakh. The accused
No.1 allegedly assaulted her and her mother-in-law
Jijabai and sister-in-laws Mangala, Gayatri, Amruta,
petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 5, respectively, relieved her of the
gold ornaments. The rest of the petitioners intimidated
her father, uncle and other relatives and turned them
out of her matrimonial home.
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 7/25
(h) Thus, the frst informant approached the Women
Security Cell, Adgaon, Nashik Rural and made a
complaint. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute.
However, husband-Vikas fatly refused to resume co-
habitation. Alleging that on account of extra-marital
relations, Vikas refused to cohabit with her, the frst
informant approached the Niphad Police Station and
lodged report on 27th October 2019, leading to FIR No.
274 of 2019.
4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioners
have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court asserting that they
have been roped in malafde. The petitioners have no role in the
alleged matrimonial dispute between the accused No.1 and the frst
informant. On 9th January 2019, the frst informant had left the
matrimonial home, on her own, and there is an unexplained delay
in lodging the FIR. This delay has led to embellishments and the
petitioners, who are, in a sense, distant relatives, have been
arraigned with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The
allegations in the FIR qua the petitioners are absurd and inherently
improbable. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, and
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 8/25
prevent the abuse the process of the Court, the FIR and the
consequent proceedings qua the petitioners deserve to be quashed.
5. By an order dated 5th March 2020, while issuing notices to
the respondents, this Court directed that the investigation may
continue; however, charge-sheet shall not be fled.
6. The respondent No.1-State has fled Criminal Application
No. 1641 of 2021 seeking permission to fle the charge-sheet as the
investigation has allegedly revealed the complicity of the accused.
7. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, we have heard Mr. Amey
Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Yagnik, the
learned APP for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Sachin Gite, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2-frst informant at length. With
the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have
perused the material on record including the investigation papers
tendered for the perusal of the Court by the learned APP.
8. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners
strenuously submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners is
manifestly attended with malafde. The frst informant never alleged
that the petitioners shared the matrimonial home with the frst
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 9/25
informant and accused No.1. In fact, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7,
being the distant relatives of the husband of the frst informant,
could not have shared the matrimonial home with the frst
informant. Petitioner No.6 Prakash has been roped in maliciously
for being the friend of the husband of the frst informant. In law,
petitioner No.6 does not fall within the ambit of the term "relative"
and, consequently, he cannot be charged for the offence punishable
under section 498A of the Penal Code.
9. Mr. Deshpande further submitted that on the own showing
of the frst informant, none of the petitioners were in the frame,
when the frst informant had approached the Women Security Cell,
Adgaon, Nashik Rural and gave the statement on 22 nd February
2019. Lastly, it was submitted that even if allegations in the frst
information report, qua the petitioners, are taken at their face
value, no offence can be said to have been prima-facie made out
against the petitioners, warranting their trial.
10. Per contra, Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP would urge that
there are allegations in the FIR which squarely incriminate the
petitioners. Those allegations fnd support in the statements of the
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. At this
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 10/25
juncture, according to Mr. Yagnik, the Court would not be justifed
in appreciating the veracity of those allegations. If the allegations in
the FIR make out a prima-facie case, the truthfulness or otherwise
thereof is a matter for trial, submitted Mr. Yagnik.
11. Mr. Sachin Gite, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-
frst informant submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7 are
indisputably the relatives of accused No.1-Vikas. In the frst
information report, the respondent No.2 has made grave allegations
against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7. In this view of the matter,
according to Mr. Gite, no case for exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction is made out. Indeed, petitioner No.6 is the friend of
accused No.1-Vikas. However, there are specifc allegations against
accused no.6 to bring his acts within the mischief of the penal
provisions other than the offence punishable under section 498A of
the Penal Code. Consequently, the FIR cannot be quashed against
any of the petitioners, canvassed Mr. Gite.
12. The thrust of the submission on behalf of the petitioners is
rested on the premise that the petitioners have been roped in for
being the relatives of the husband of the frst informant. It may
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 11/25
thus be apposite to note the relationship of the petitioner Nos.1 to
5 and 7 with the husband of the frst informant.
13. The petitioner No.1-Mangala is the maternal cousin of
Vikas, petitioner No.2-Ramdas is the husband of petitioner No.1.
Petitioner No.3-Gayatri is the paternal cousin of Vikas. Petitioner
No.4-Ganesh is the paternal cousin of Vikas. Petitioner No.5 -
Amruta is the wife of paternal cousin of Vikas. Petitioner No.7-
Sharad is the maternal cousin of Vikas. Indubitably, the petitioner
No.6-Prakash is not a relative of accused No.1-Vikas, but a friend.
14. At this juncture, it may be apposite to immediately notice
the gist of the allegations against the petitioners in the frst
information report. The allegations against petitioner Nos.1 to 5
and 7 are two fold. One, on 9 th November 2019, the petitioner Nos.1
to 5 and 7 had been to the matrimonial house of the frst
informant, on the occasion of Dipavali, and they also threatened
the frst informant to bring a sum of Rs.10 lakh from her father lest
she would not be treated well, at her matrimonial home. Two, on 9 th
January 2019, during the course of the meeting held to resolve the
matrimonial discord, the petitioner No.1-Mangala, petitioner No.3
Gayatri and petitioner No.5 Amruta joined her mother-in-law
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 12/25
Jijabai-accused No.3, in relieving her of the gold ornaments.
Thereafter, the petitioner No.4-Ganesh, petitioner No.2-Ramdas,
petitioner No.7-Sharad intimidated her, her father and relatives
and turned them out of her matrimonial home.
15. It would be contextually relevant to note that in addition to
the aforesaid allegation of intimidation in the meeting dated 9 th
January 2019, the petitioner No.6-Prakash is attributed with the
role of having made a demand of Rs.10 Lakh to the father of the
frst informant to fnance the setting up of an offce for Vikas at
Nashik.
16. Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in
context of the aforesaid allegations, submitted that the respondent
No.2 had not at all named the petitioners in the statement before
the Women Security Cell, recorded on 22 nd February 2019. Laying
emphasis on the allegations in the said complaint, which are
primarily against Vikas, Mr. Deshpande strenuously urged that the
petitioners have been roped in to spite them, after deliberation.
17. We have perused the statement, dated 22 nd February 2019,
which has been furnished under the Right to Information Act,
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 13/25
2005. Indeed the allegations are primarily against Vikas. First,
Vikas had an affair with another girl and his marriage was
solemnized with respondent No.2, against his wish. Despite
marriage, the said liaison continued and Vikas harassed the
respondent No.2. To cover up the said misdemeanor, Vikas falsely
alleged that the respondent No.2 had an affair with her paternal
cousin and thus suspected her fdelity. Second, Vikas made a
demand of Rs.10 Lakh to set up an offce. For non-fulfllment of the
said demand, the respondent No.2 was made to leave the
matrimonial home on 26th July 2018.
18. As regards the meeting dated 9th January 2019, in the
statement dated 22nd February 2019, the respondent No.2 asserted
that, despite efforts on the part of her parents and relatives, Vikas
and her in-laws refused to allow her to resume cohabitation. When
her father left her at the matrimonial home and went away, the
relatives of Vikas and his neighbours allegedly abused them. Vikas
threw away her bag and relieved her of the gold and silver
ornaments and turned her out of the matrimonial home forcibly. A
cousin of her father-in-law brought the respondent No.2 to her
paternal home.
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 14/25
19. The aforesaid statement does not form part of the
investigation papers. However, there is a copy of a written
complaint, dated 18th January 2019, which forms part of the
investigation papers. In the said complaint, dated 18 th January
2019, though the frst informant has named the petitioners herein,
yet they are not in the frame till 9th January 2019. The allegations
are against Vikas, in particular, and his parents and brothers, in
general. On 2nd January 2019 itself, the accused Nos.1 to 5, i.e.,
Vikas, his parents and brothers, allegedly abused, assaulted and
turned the respondent No.2 out of her matrimonial home and
relieved her of gold and silver ornaments. On 9 th January 2019, the
petitioners herein were present when discussions were held to
resolve the matrimonial dispute. On that day also, Vikas had
allegedly assaulted the respondent No.2 and turned her out of the
matrimonial home. There is a general allegation that the accused,
including the petitioners, threatened the respondent No.2 not to
return to the matrimonial home lest she will face dire
consequences.
20. Evidently, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, dated
18th January 2019, action was initiated at Women Security Cell, to
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 15/25
resolve the matrimonial dispute, amicably. It seems, on 22 nd
February 2019, the aforesaid statement was recorded. Though the
said statement dated 22nd February 2019 does not form part of the
investigation paper, yet, the fact that its copy was furnished under
Right to Information Act, 2005, could not be disputed. Moreover,
the said statement appears to have been recorded during the
course of the inquiry at Women Security Cell.
21. The situation which thus obtains is that in the complaint
dated 9th January 2018, lodged against the petitioners as well,
there are no allegations of either making unlawful demand of
property on 9th November 2019, when the petitioners allegedly
visited her matrimonial home on the occasion of Dipavali or
relieving the frst informant of the gold and silver ornaments on 9 th
January 2019. Likewise, in the statement of the frst informant
recorded on 22nd February 2019, the aforesaid allegations are
conspicuous by their absence qua the petitioners. In contrast,
there are allegations against Vikas and his parents and brothers of
abusing, assaulting and turning the frst informant out of
matrimonial home, after relieving her of the gold and silver
ornaments on 9th January 2019, in the written complaint dated 18 th
January 2019. Whereas, in the statement dated 22 nd February
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 16/25
2019, the said role of relieving her of the ornaments is attributed to
Vikas alone.
22. The aforesaid factor is required to be considered in
juxtaposition with incontrovertible position that the petitioners did
not share the matrimonial home with the frst informant. Petitioner
Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are not the immediate relatives of the husband of
the frst informant. The petitioner No.6 is, indisputably, a friend of
Vikas.
23. At this juncture, the question of the scope of inquiry while
considering the prayer for quashment of a prosecution, especially
under section 498A of the Penal Code, comes to the fore. There can
be no duality of opinion on the point that the inherent powers of
the High Court are preserved with the avowed object of preventing
the abuse of the judicial process and securing the ends of justice.
High Court would be justifed in quashing a proceeding if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice
would be sub-served by quashing the proceedings. The powers of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are of wide amplitude.
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 17/25
However, this very plenitude of the power brings in the element of
circumspection, and exercise in deserving cases only. Thus, the
test that is usually applied is whether the allegations in the frst
information report/charge-sheet, even if they are taken on their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie make
out the offences for which the petitioners have been arraigned? If
the answer is in the negative, further inquiry is not warranted. The
High Court is not expected to delve into evaluation of the material
to ascertain its veracity or otherwise.
24. A proftable reference, in this context, can be made to a
three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
wherein, in the
context of the prosecution under section 498A of the Penal Code,
the scope of inquiry for quashment of the proceedings was
expounded. Paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 read as under :-
"10. We disagree. 'Cruelty' as defned 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
confned 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
1 (2014) 3 SCC 383
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 18/25
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. The
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)
25. On the aforesaid touchstone, revering to the facts of the
case, in our view, the absence of the allegations against the
petitioners in the complaint in writing dated 18 th January 2019,
and the statement of the frst informant dated 22 nd February 2019,
is a factor which materially bears upon the question as to whether
the allegations in the FIR qua the petitioners even if taken, as they
stand, prima-facie make out the offences. On the one hand, the
written complaint dated 18th January 2019 and the statement of
the frst informant dated 22nd February 2019, were more proximate
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 19/25
to the date of occurrence, i.e. 9th January 2019, when efforts were
made to amicably resolve the matrimonial dispute. On the other
hand, the time lag of about 11 months in lodging the report from
the said occurrence, brings in the element of embellishment and
afterthought.
26. At this stage, the aspect of the general tendency of roping
in the relatives of the husband, who may not have any role to play
in the alleged harassment of the women, wrenches to the fore. It is
judicially recognized that in the wake of marital discord, the
allegations are made thick and fast. There is a tendency to rope in
as many persons from the family of the husband as possible
irrespective of their involvement in the alleged harassment. In the
face of such a situation, two considerations, equally weighty,
inform the decision. On the one hand, the law must sternly deal
with the matrimonial cruelty. On the other hand, there is an
abiding public interest in ensuring that the relatives of the
husband, who have no concern with the matrimonial dispute and
its aftermath, are not prosecuted for the only reason that they
happen to be the relatives of the husband. The situation becomes
even more accentuated when the petitioners are not immediate
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 20/25
relatives.
27. 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. 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)
28. 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
2 (2010) 7SCC 667
3 (2005) 3 SCC 507
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 21/25
with the frst 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.
29. 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 :-
"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)
30. 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
4 (2012) 10 SCC 741
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016) dt. 21st August 2018
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 22/25
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 specifc instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
(emphasis supplied)
31. In the backdrop of the aforesaid exposition of law,
readverting to the facts of the case, in our considered view, the
implication of the petitioners herein for the offences punishable
under sections 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal
Code is actuated by a design to harass and humiliate the
petitioners for the sole reason that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and 7
happened to be the relatives of Vikas.
32. The prosecution qua petitioner No.6 stands on an even
weaker foundation. Indisputably, the petitioner No.6 does not fall
within the ambit of the term "relative" used in section 498A. In the
case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police & Anr. 6, the
import of the term "relative" was expounded as under :
"10. In the absence of any statutory defnition, the
term "relative" must be assigned a meaning as is
commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include
father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter,
6 (2009) 6 SCC 757
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 23/25
brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or
granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of
any person. The meaning of the word "relative"
would depend upon the nature of the statute. It
principally includes a person related by blood,
marriage or adoption."
33. Fully mindful of the limited nature of the inquiry, we may
indicate the reasons which impel us to take the aforesaid view.
First and foremost, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 did not appear
to be immediate relatives of Vikas. Second, they did not share the
matrimonial home at any point of time. Thirdly, there is a bald
allegation in the frst information report that the petitioners had
also made an unlawful demand of Rs.10 Lakh on 9 th November
2018, when they visited the matrimonial home of the frst
informant on the occasion of Dipavali. This allegation lacks the
element of certainty and authorship. Even if taken at par, this
allegation would fall in the realm of "demand" only. There are no
allegations to the effect that the petitioners subjected the frst
informant to cruelty in order to coerce her to meet the demand.
Fourthly, contemporaneous complaint dated 18 th January 2019 and
the proximate statement dated 22nd February 2019, do not attribute
the said role to the petitioners. Fifthly, in the frst information
report, as regards the incident dated 9 th January 2019, a general
allegation is made against Mangala, Gayatri, Amruta, petitioner
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 24/25
Nos.1, 3 and 5, respectively, that, alongwith mother-in-law, of the
frst informant, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 5 relieved the frst
informant of the gold ornaments. Again, the contemporaneous
complaint in writing and the proximate statement do not attribute
the said role to the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5. Conversely, the said
role is attributed to Vikas, his parents and brothers, in the
complaint dated 18th January 2019, and to Vikas alone in the
statement dated 22nd February 2019.
34. In the totality of the circumstances, allowing the
prosecution of the distant relatives and friend of the husband of
the frst informant, when the material on record does not indicate
nay rules out their involvement, would amount to grave injustice.
We are, thus, inclined to hold that in the facts of the case, it would
be necessary to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings
arising out of the said FIR qua the petitioners as its continuation
would amount to abuse of the judicial process and the quashment
would serve the ends of justice.
35. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The petition stands allowed.
Shraddha Talekar PS
WP-193-2020=IA-J.doc 25/25
(ii) The frst information report No. 274 of 2019 and
the consequent proceeding arising out of the said FIR
stand quashed qua the petitioners.
(iii) The Investigating Offcer is, however, at
liberty to lodge the charge-sheet against Vikas and his
parents and brothers.
(iv) By way of abundant caution, we clarify that
the case against Vikas and rest of the accused shall
proceed uninfuenced by any of the observations
made hereinabove, which are confned to the
consideration of the question of quashment of the
proceeding against the petitioners.
Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
In view of the disposal of the petition, Criminal Application
No. 1641 of 2021 also stands disposed of, with liberty to the
Investigating Offcer to proceed against Vikas and the rest of the
accused.
[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ S. S. SHINDE, J.]
Shraddha Talekar PS
