Bombay High Court
Mahendra Chandrakant Pandhare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 August, 2022
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi, Rajesh S. Patil
1/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1180 OF 2022
1. Chandrakant Mohan Pandhare (Father-in-law),
Age : 71 years, Occu. Retired.
2. Mangal Chandrakant Pandhare (Mother-in-law),
Age : 65 yrs., Occu. Household,
Both R/o. 781, Surana Building,
Tofkhana, Nagar,
Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. Neeta Sanjay Sarode (Sister-in-law),
Age : 48 yrs, Occu. Service
4. Sanjay Bhagwan Sarode (Husband of sister-in-law),
Age : 52 yrs., Occu. Service,
Applicant no. 3 and 4
R/o. H. No. 72, Samta Colony,
Burudgaon Road, Fulsundar Mala,
Ahmednagar.
5. Maya Sanjay Kharave (Sister-in-law),
Age : 46 yrs., Occu. Service
6. Sanjay Dharmaraj Kharave (Husband of sister-in-law)
Age : 49 yrs., Occu. Service,
Applicant no. 5 and 6
R/o. 31/B, Sai Prasad Housing Society,
Nagar Manmad Road, Laxmiwadi,
Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.
7. Durga Yugendra @ Sachin Prayage (Sister-in-law),
Age : 37 yrs., Occu. Household
8. Sachin @ Yugendra Gopal Prayage (Husband of sister-in-law),
Age : 41 yrs., Occu. Service,
sgp
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2022 04:04:50 :::
2/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
Applicant no. 7 and 8,
R/o. Brahaman Galli, Behind Fort,
Lasalgaon, Dist. Nashik.
9. Suvarna Milind Mule (Sister-in-law),
Age : 44 yrs., Occu. Household
10. Milind Rajaram Mule,
Age : 47 yrs., Occu. Service,
Applicant no. 9 and 10
R/o. Ambika Nagar, Deolali Pravara,
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Sarika Mahendra Pandhare,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. C/o. Rajendra Kanhayalal Nandode,
Anuradha Apartment, G. S. High School,
Plot No. 1, Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondents
.....
Mr. R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondent/State
Mr. A. S. Kale i/b Talekar & Associates for respondent no. 2
.....
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1692 OF 2022
Mahendra s/o Chandrakant Pandhare (Husband of respdt. no.2),
Age : 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. 781, Surana Building, Tofkhana,
Nagar, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar. ...Applicant
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
sgp
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2022 04:04:50 :::
3/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
2] Sarika Mahendra Pandhare,
Age : 35 yrs., Occu. Household,
R/o. C/o. Rajendra Kanhayalal Nandode,
Anuradha Apartment, G. S. High School,
Plot No. 1, Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondents
.....
Mr. R. K. Temkar, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for respondent/State
Mr. A. S. Kale i/b Talekar & Associates for respondent no. 2
.....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] : -
1. Both the Criminal Applications have been filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR vide C.R. No. 0070/2022
dated 12.02.2022 registered at the instance of respondent no. 2 with
Amalner Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
FACTS : -
2. The marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with
applicant no. 1 on 25.10.2018, according to the Hindu rites and
rituals. They have no issue in a said wedlock.
sgp
4/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
3. It is alleged in the First Information Report filed by
respondent no. 2 that the couple were living happily and peacefully for
a period of 10 to 15 days. Soon thereafter, the husband, father-in-law
and mother-in-law of respondent no. 2 started saying that they were
not given dowry, golden ornaments and proper respect in the marriage.
Again after a fortnight, the other applicants adopted the language used
by applicant nos. 1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law and
made unlawful demand of Rs. 20.00 lakhs for purchasing a house,
respondent no. 2 said that her father has expended huge amount in the
marriage and now he doesn't have money and upon saying so, the
applicants got annoyed and they beat and abused respondent no. 2.
Respondent no. 2 informed the said incident to her parents.
4. It is further alleged in the FIR that, thereafter, on
02.10.2019, in-laws and husband of respondent no. 2 again asked
respondent no. 2 to bring from her parents an amount of Rs. 20.00
lakhs for purchasing house in Nashik and when respondent no. 2
denied for the same, she was abused, beaten up and driven out of the
house. Thereafter, she left for her maternal home and since then she
has been staying with her parents. Thereafter, her husband came to
Amalner to take her back to her matrimonial home and on signing the
agreement, respondent no. 2 went along with her husband at Yeola,
Nashik. Again after a fortnight, when husband of respondent no. 2
took her to his parents at Ahmednagar, she was driven out of the house
and thereafter, both applicant (husband) and respondent no. 2 came
back to Yeola.
sgp
5/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
5. It is further alleged in the FIR that, on 29.12.2021,
applicant (husband) again asked respondent no. 2 to bring Rs. 20.00
lakhs from her parents to purchase a house in Nashik and when
respondent no. 2 denied, she was beaten and abused by her husband.
When she threatened of going to Police, she was threatened of life by
her husband. Respondent no. 2 then approached the Yeola Police
Station and registered N.C. against her husband. Thereafter, when her
husband came to know about filing of N.C., he abused and beat her
and drove her out of the house. Ever since, she is staying with her
parents at Amalner. It is further alleged that on 06.02.2022, when
respondent and her parents were at home, the applicants excluding
mother-in-law came and demanded divorce by handing over divorce
papers and when parents of respondent no. 2 tried to convince the
applicants, they beat parents of respondent no. 2 and also said that the
applicants have filed cases against them at Yeola and if she comes to
Yeola, she will be killed. Hence, respondent no. 2 has filed complaint
as referred to above against all the applicants.
6. The applicants have stated in the Criminal Application
that the complaint filed by the present respondent no. 2 is nothing but
concotion of false incidents and only with a view to harass the
applicants, she has lodged false complaint. After seven days of the
marriage, the respondent no. 2 and applicant (husband) had started
residing at Yeola, as applicant (husband) works as Clerk in the Court at
Yeola and, therefore, the allegations of ill-treatment and harassment at
the hands of applicants are false.
sgp
6/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
7. The applicants have further stated in the application that
there was dispute between the applicant (husband) and respondent no.
2 when they were residing at Yeola. Respondent no. 2 had called her
parents at Yeola and they had assaulted the applicant (husband) and
thereupon applicant (husband) had filed FIR bearing No. 143/2009
against the respondent no. 2 and others at Yeola Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506
and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on 03.10.2019. Due to the said
complaint, the relations between the couple were strained and therefore
she filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
restitution of conjugal rights. The said proceedings, after compromise,
were withdrawn on 25.09.2021. The respondent no. 2 again filed
proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure
against the applicant (husband) seeking maintenance and same was
withdrawn after compromise. The respondent no. 2 again filed Cri. M.
A. No. 14 of 2020 seeking releifs under the provisions of Domestic
Violence Act.
8. The applicants have further stated in the Criminal
Application that even after the strained relations, the applicant
(husband) tried to cohabit with respondent no. 2 by signing
document/agreement by mutual consent, which was executed on
28.06.2021. All the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1180 of
2022 stay at Ahmednagar and only with a view to harass all the
applicants, the respondent no. 2 has filed complaint against them.
Hence, it is prayed that the FIR be quashed against all the applicants.
sgp
7/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
SUBMISSIONS: -
9. Heard Mr. R. K. Temkar learned advocate for the
applicants, Mr. A. M. Phule, learned APP for the State, and Mr. A. S.
Kale i/b Talekar & Associates for respondent No.2.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
allegations levelled against the applicants are false. The respondent no.
2 only with a view to wreak vengeance on the applicants have arrayed
them in the offence in question. It is nothing but concoted story, as no
incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place. He further submits that
all the applicants reside separately from applicant (husband) and
respondent no. 2 and they have never shared common shelter with
them. He further submits that, applicant (husband) serves in a Court at
Yeola and both applicant (husband) and respondent no. 2 were staying
at Yeola, Nashik. The applicants have nothing to do with the marital
life of respondent no. 2 and they have been roped in the offence in
questions only with an intention to pressurize them. On the basis of
the allegations made in the criminal complaint, no cognizable offence
can be said to have made out. He, therefore, prayed that the Criminal
Applications be allowed.
11. After hearing the parties for sometime, when this Court
showed disinclination to grant relief in favour of applicant (husband) in
Criminal Application No. 1692 of 2022, the learned counsel for the
applicant, on instructions, sought to withdraw the said application.
Leave granted. The Criminal Application No. 1692 of 2022 stands
disposed of as withdrawn. Now, therefore, only Criminal Application
No. 1180 of 2022 is considered.
sgp
8/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
12. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated that the
vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicants.
He further submits that, complaint is instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the applicants and with a view to spite them
due to private and personal grudge. The delay caused in registering the
complaint is unexplained which washes out it's credibility. No specific
allegation is attributed to any of the applicants. All the applicants in
the present application i.e. Criminal Application No. 1180 of 2022 are
relatives and reside at different places in Ahmednagar. He, therefore,
prays for allowing the application.
13. Learned APP - Mr. A. M. Phule, learned APP for the
State, and Mr. A. S. Kale i/b Talekar & Associates for respondent No.2
submitted that specific allegations have been made against all the
applicants, hence there is no question of quashing of FIR against the
applicants.
ANALYSIS : -
14. For quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. we have to see, whether the allegations in the complaint
and F.I.R. prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged.
We are of the view that under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., we have
inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent
abuse of the process of any law to secure the ends of justice.
15. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the applicant nos. 1
and 2, who are old aged in-laws of respondent no. 2, reside at
sgp
9/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
Ahmednagar. Applicant No. 3 and 4 works in different departments at
Ahmednagar and both of them reside in Ahmednagar. Applicant no. 5
is the married sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 and works as Asst.
Tacher in the Girls School run by Shirdi Sansthan and resides with her
husband in Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. Applicant no. 7 is the married
sister-in-law of respondent no. 2 and stays with her husband in
Lasalgaon at Nashik. Applicant no. 9 is also married sister-in-law of
respondent no. 2 and stays with applicant no. 10 at Deolali Pravata,
Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. As such, all these applicants never
stayed with respondent no. 2 and accused (husband). All these
applicants in Criminal Application No. 1180 of 2022 are relatives of
husband of Respondent No. 2. There are vague allegations against
them in F.I.R. On the basis of the allegations made in the Criminal
Complaint, no cognizable offence can be said to have been made out.
16. We have in our recently decided Criminal Application
No.2230/2020 [Narayan s/o Eknath Devkar and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, decided on 25.07.2022], after considering the
various judgments in paragraph nos. 22 to 27, held that continuation
of prosecution against far off relatives would amount to abuse of
process of law.
17. The Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.,
reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 stated "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.
sgp
10/10 APPLN1180.2022&Anr
18. Our High Court in Shaikh Mushrraf Pasha and others Vs.
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.
19. Thus, we are of the considered view that the respondent
No.2 only with an intention to harass the applicants, has filed the
complaint also against far off relatives i.e. applicants. Continuation of
prosecution against Applicants, who are far off relatives of husband and
who stay separately in their own houses, in our opinion, would amount
to abuse of process of law.
20. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the cases
of Gian Singh and Geeta Mehrotra (supra), we are of the considered
view that so far as applicants in Criminal Application No. 1180 of
2022 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 against the applicants.
ORDER
I] Criminal Application No. 1692 of 2022 stands disposed
of as withdrawn.
II] Criminal Application No. 1180 of 2022 stands allowed in
terms of prayer clause 'B' of the application.
[RAJESH S. PATIL] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
