Bombay High Court
Jivan Vinayak Suryawanshi And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 August, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Rajesh S. Patil
{1}
Appln646.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2021
1. Jivan Vinayak Suryawanshi,
Age. 44 years, Occ. Labour,
2. Suvarna W/o. Jivan Suryawanshi,
Age. 33 years, Occ. household,
3. Mayuri @ Shradha D/o. Jivan Suryawanshi,
Age. 20 years, Occ. Education,
1 to 3 R/o. Navhi Galli, Ahmadpur,
Taluka Ahmadpur, District Latur.
4. Anita @ Anuradha D/o. Kamlakar Suryawanshi
After marriage
Anita @ Anuradha W/o. Govind Gaikwad,
Age. 29 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Sarola Taluka Ausa District Latur. .... Petitioners
(Original Accused Nos. 5,6,7 & 13)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur,
Taluka and District Latur.
2. Ganga Shrinivas Suryawanshi,
Age. 28 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Huseniya Colony, India Nagar, Latur
Taluka and District Latur. ... Respondents
(Original Complainant)
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D.P. Munde
APP for State : Mr. R.V. Dasalkar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.K. Ashtekar
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2022.
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2022 12:40:15 :::
{2}
Appln646.21.odt
JUDGMENT [PER : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] :-
1. By the present application filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 who are arrayed as
accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 13, are praying for quashing and setting aside
First Information Report No. 10/2021, which is culminated into charge-
sheet No. 49/2021, registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District
Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Latur.
A. FACTS :
2. The respondent No. 2 got married with Shrinivas Sunilrao
Suryawanshi on 14th May, 2020, as per hindu rituals and customs. Few
days after marriage the respondent No. 2 and Shrinivas (husband) stayed
happily. However, soon there were quarrels between the respondent No.
2 and Shrinivas (husband).
3. Consequently, on 04th September, 2020, respondent No. 2
approached the Women Redressal Forum, Latur, with her complaints. As
there was no solution, on 02nd January, 2021, respondent No. 2 lodged
complaint with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur, against her husband
(Shrinivas) and 16 persons being the relatives of her husband, for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, FIR No. 10/2021 was registered
against 17 persons.
4. In the FIR, the respondent No. 2's case was that after 15 days
of her marriage, the in-laws treated her badly and demanded Rs.
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2022 12:40:15 :::
{3}
Appln646.21.odt
51,000/- from her. It is further stated in the complaint that all these 17
persons mentioned in the complaint ill-treated her and demanded a sum
of Rs. 5 Lakhs for purchasing of a plot. They accordingly, physically and
mentally tortured her and kept her hungry.
5. The present applicants are shown as accused Nos. 5,6, 7 and
13 in the FIR No. 10/2021. The applicant No. 1 (accused No. 5) is
cousin father-in-law of respondent No. 2, the applicant No. 2 (accused
No. 6) is the cousin mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, the applicant No.
3 (accused No. 7) is the cousin sister-in-law, at the relevant time she was
stayed at Pune, and applicant No. 4 (accused No. 13) is the cousin
married sister-in-law of respondent No. 2. The applicants have filed a
present Criminal Application for quashing of FIR and the charge-sheet
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, against them.
B. SUBMISSION OF PARTIES :
6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Munde for the applicants, Mr.
R.V. Dasalkar, learned APP for State and learned Advocate Mr. R.K.
Ashtekar for Respondent No. 2.
7. It is the case of the applicants that they are far of relatives
being the cousins of husband of respondent No. 2. In the complaint,
these are general allegations against the present applicants.
8. The Respondent No. 2 lodged criminal complaint based on
vague allegations against all the applicants, which resulted into filing of
FIR against all 17 persons including the applicants. The only statement
in the FIR against the present applicants is that all the 17 accused have
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2022 12:40:15 :::
{4}
Appln646.21.odt
ill-treated her and demanded a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs for purchasing of a
plot of land. On the basis of the allegations made in the criminal
complaint, no cognizable offence can be said to be made out.
9. Learned APP Mr. Dasalkar and learned Advocate Mr.
Ashtekar for respondent No. 2 submitted that specific allegations have
been made against all the applicants, hence there is no question of
quashing First Information Report.
C. ANALYSIS :
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant
No. 3 at the relevant time was studying in Pune. Applicant No. 4 married
before 10 years with the Govind Gaikwad since then she is residing in her
in-laws house. The applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are residing separately, and
applicant No. 4 is residing at Sarola. They are distant relatives of
husband of respondent No. 2, and residing separately. Therefore, in our
considered view, only with a view to harass the applicants, they has been
arraigned as an accused in the compliant by respondent No. 2.
11. The only statement in the FIR against the applicants is that,
all the accused have ill-treated her (respondent No. 2) and demanded a
sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs for purchasing plot of land and have not given food to
her. Except this sentence, there is no other sentence alleged against the
applicants. The above sentence does not specifically name applicants
personally and also does not clarify how applicants who are residing in
different places, could ill-treat or not give food to respondent No.2.
::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2022 12:40:15 :::
{5}
Appln646.21.odt
12. We have in our recently in similar kind of fact decided
Criminal Application No. 2230/2020, Narayan S/o. Eknath Devkar and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, on 25.07.2022.
13. The Apex court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., reported
in AIR 2013 SC 181 stated that "It can thus be seen that mere reference
to family members without any specific allegations against them would
not justify taking cognizance against them. There is a tendency to
involve the entire family members in a matrimonial dispute."
14. Our High Court in Shaikh Mushrraf Pasha and Others Versus
State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2021 (2) AVR (Cri.) 343,
has observed that continuance of prosecution against relative of husband
is nothing but abuse of process of law.
15. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the cases of
Geeta Mehrotra, Shaikh Mushrraf Pasha (supra) and Narayan Devkar
(supra), we are of the considered view that so far as applicants are
concerned, there are no specific allegations against them and only with a
view to harass them, they have been arrayed as an accused in the FIR.
Therefore, in our view, this is a fit case wherein we should exercise our
discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the FIR as against the applicants.
ORDER
i. The Criminal Application stands allowed in terms of
prayer clause 'B' and 'B-1' of the application.
{6}
Appln646.21.odt
ii. The Criminal Application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
SPChauhan
