Bombay High Court
Hemantsingh S/O Krishnakumar ... vs State Of Mah.Thr. Police Station ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale, Valmiki Sa Menezes
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLN. (APL) NO. 1088 OF 2021
APPLICANTS : 1. Hemantsingh s/o Krishnakumar Singh
Bais, Aged about 38 years, Occ -
Labour,
2. Krishnakumarsingh S/o Govindsingh
Bais, Aged about 68 years, Occ - Nil,
Both R/o Rajput Pura, Daryapur, Tq.
& Dist. Amravati.
3. Sau. Dipti W/o Rajeshsingh Khamre,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.:
Household, R/o 4, Regency Grove,
Wodcroft, New South Wales,
Austrialia.
-VERSUS-
NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station
Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
2. Sau.Jyotsna w/o Hemantsingh Bais,
Aged about 35 years, Occ.:
Household, R/o C/o. Sukhdevsingh
Babusingh Chauhan, R/o. Kanjara, Tq.
Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Dist.
Amravati.
KHUNTE
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
2/6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.R.Agrawal, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.I. J. Damle, APP for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. Siddharth Ghatte, counsel for non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATE : 10.08.2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Manish Pitale, J.)
Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
3. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of
First Information Report (FIR) No.108 of 2021, dated 03/04/2021,
registered at Police Station Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District
Amravati for the offences punishable under sections, 498-A, 504 and
506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as also charge-
sheet filed by the Investigating Authority upon completion of
investigation.
KHUNTE
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
4. The FIR was registered at the behest of non-applicant No.2,
who is the wife of applicant No.1, daughter-in-law of applicant No.2
and applicant No.3 is the sister-in-law of non-applicant No.2.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that he has instructions not to press this application insofar as
applicant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. Therefore, the present
application is dismissed as withdrawn insofar as applicant Nos.1 and
2 are concerned, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings for
discharge, in view of the fact that the charge-sheet is already filed
before the concerned Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has pressed
this application insofar as applicant No.3 is concerned. Attention of
this Court was invited to the oral report leading to registration of
FIR as also contents of the charge-sheet and the documents filed
therewith. It was submitted that even if the contents thereof are
taken as it is, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out
insofar as applicant No.3 is concerned. It was highlighted that
applicant No.3 is a resident of Australia after marriage. It was
submitted that she visited India after the marriage between
KHUNTE
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2, only on two occasions. The
last occasion on which applicant No.3 visited India, she left for
Australia on 17/01/2019. It was submitted that vague allegations
have been made in the oral report against applicant No.3 and that
the charge-sheet has also not brought out anything against her. On
this basis, it was submitted that the present application insofar as
applicant No.3 is concerned, deserves to be allowed in terms of the
prayer made in the application.
7. Mr. I. J. Damle, learned APP appeared for non-applicant
No.2 and Mr.S. Ghatte, learned counsel appeared on behalf of non-
applicant No.2 and opposed the contentions raised on behalf of
applicant No.3.
8. We have perused the contents of the oral report leading to
registration of FIR. It is only at one place that reference is made to
applicant No.3. It is stated by non-applicant No.2 that applicant
No.3 had come from Australia and visited the matrimonial place. It
is alleged that applicant No.3 had incited applicant Nos.1 and 2 to
ill-treat non-applicant No.2. Apart from the aforesaid statement,
there is nothing to indicate any specific act attributed to applicant
KHUNTE
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
No.3. The papers filed along with the charge-sheet confirmed the
fact that applicant No.3 is indeed residing in Australia.
9. It is brought to our notice that after 2014, i.e. the year in
which applicant No.1 and non-applicant No.2 got married, applicant
No.3 had visited India only on two occasions, i.e. from 08/12/2016
to 25/01/2017 and from 25/12/2018 to 17/01/2019.
10. We find that the last date on which applicant No.3 could
have interacted with non-applicant No.2 was in January, 2019. The
allegations made against applicant No.3 in the oral report are
general and vague. It was only stated that applicant No.3 had
incited applicant Nos.1 and 2 to ill-treat non-applicant No.2.
Beyond such a general and vague statement, there is no specific
allegation as against applicant No.3 to indicate that ingredients of
the offences alleged under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code could be said to be even prima facie made out
against applicant No.3. It is often seen that in such matters, the
informant/complainant has a tendency of roping in all the relatives
of the husband and in that process relatives like applicant No.3
herein are named in the oral report, although there are no specific
KHUNTE
30-APL1088.21-Judgment.odt
allegations made against her. We are convinced that insofar as
applicant No.3 is concerned, even prima facie material is not
available for the matter to proceed to trial as against her. Therefore,
a case for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet, insofar as
applicant No.3 is concerned, is made out and therefore, to that
limited extent, the present application deserves to be allowed.
11. In view of the above, the present application is allowed only
insofar as applicant No.3 is concerned, in terms of prayer clause (i),
which reads as follows:
"i). quash and set aside the R.C.C. No.65/2021 pending on the
file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nandgaon
Khandeshwar which is arising out of FIR No.108/2021, Dt.
03/04/2021 registered with Non-applicant No.1 i.e. Police
Station, Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Dist. Amravati, for the
offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 504 and 506 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code (ANNEXURE- "D") qua the present
applicants;"
12. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J) (MANISH PITALE, J)
Signed By:GHANSHYAM S
KHUNTE
Signing Date:12.08.2022 10:42
KHUNTE
