Bombay High Court
Pradip Lotan Bagal And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1460 OF 2021
1. Pradip S/o Lotan Bagal,
Age : 31 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Nimgul, Tq. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
2. Sunandabai W/o Lotan Bagal,
Age : 63 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o Nimgul, Tq. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
3. Lotan S/o Krushna Bagal,
Age : 64 Years, Occ. : Agri.,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
4. Bhatu S/o Lotan Bagal,
Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Agri.,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal - Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
5. Komalbai W/o Bhatu Bagal,
Age ; 29 years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal - Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
6. Dnyneshwar S/o. Lotan Bagal,
Age : 33 Years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal - Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
7. Vaishali W/o Dnyneshwar Bagal,
Age : 27 Years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal - Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
1/12
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 21:02:24 :::
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
8. Kamlabai W/o. Shamrao Bagal,
Age : 75 Years, Occ. : Household,
R/o. Nimgul, Tal - Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule. ... Applicants.
(Orig. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Smt. Karishma W/o Pradip Bagal,
Age : 22 Years, Occ. : Housewife,
C/o. Kailas Shriram Patil,
Dhupi, Tal - Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents.
(Respondent No.2
Original Complainant)
...
Mr. Suniket A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. S. J. Salgare, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. S. A. Ambilwade h/f. Mr. H.P. Randhir, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 14 NOVEMBER 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 02 DECEMBER 2022
JUDGMENT (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
1. By way of instant proceedings, applicants herein are seeking exercise of
powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and nullifying crime vide FIR No. 270 of
2021 registered at Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and the consequential
charge sheet vide R.C.C. No. 25 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Amalner.
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
Facts in brief
2. Respondent no.2 herein, who is wife of applicant no.1, has set the law
in motion alleging that after getting married to applicant no.1, initially she
was treated properly by her husband and in-laws i.e. the applicants herein.
She has alleged that subsequently, they all indulged in maltreating her on one
or other count. On the instigation of applicant nos. 2 to 8, husband as well as
all other applicants beat and abused her. Demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was raised
by all applicants for purchasing house and as she failed to raise the amount,
she was beaten, abused and driven out of the house. Hence the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants appraised this court about the date of
marriage and relations of applicant nos. 2 to 8 with respondent no.2. He
would take us through the FIR and would submit that instant complaint is
merely out of annoyance and vengeance as complainant herself was not
interested in cohabiting and continuing her marital tie with applicant no.1.
Therefore she started levelling vague, baseless allegations not only against her
husband with whom she had rancor, but also against her entire in-laws even
when they had no concern whatsoever with the marital discord between her
and applicant no.1. He pointed out that the above complaint being false and
baseless is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, according to him,
applicants cannot be made to face trial with allegations of such nature.
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
According to him, the complaint is mala fide and with sole intention of roping
entire family and harassing them. Hence he prays to grant the relief as prayed
by them.
4. In support of the complaint, learned APP would submit that shortly after
marriage, husband and his relatives who are named in the FIR started ill-
treating the complainant and subjected her to cruelty. They made her life
miserable. There was continuous instigation to husband by all co-accused and
as a result of it, there was continuous abuse and beating to her. There is
allegation in the complaint about demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. He pointed out
that for not meeting the illegal demand, she was drive out of the house. Thus,
according to him, at this stage as, the veracity of the allegations cannot be
tested, applicants are liable to face prosecution and so he prays for dismissal of
the application.
5. Learned counsel representing respondent no.2 also argued on the same
lines as learned APP, and he pointed out that husband and in-laws have
subjected the complainant to cruelty. They are all named in the complaint.
There are allegations of abuse and beating in the backdrop of demand of
money. Therefore, he too resisted the application and the reliefs sought by the
applicants and prayed for dismissal of the application.
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
6. Here, applicants are seeking exercise of powers bestowed on this Court
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Before adverting to the complaint in the case in
hand, it would be apt to discuss briefly the settled legal position on the scope
and object of section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. In catena of judgments the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again
reiterated that inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised
by the High Court; firstly, to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C., secondly, to
prevent abuse of process of court and thirdly, to secure ends of justice.
In the landmark case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, it was observed as under:
"23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Every
High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
24. Inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists
for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then
the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking
inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the
statute."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Vrat Singh Vs. Shyam Singh
Sahai; (2009) SCC Suppl. 709, while dealing with the powers of the High
Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has held as under :
"6. The Section does not confer any new power on the High
Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the
Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment
dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart
from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper
discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section
which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the
High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in
the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right
and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on
the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere
videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law
gives a person anything it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the
court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in
the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power
to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court
to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice.
7. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
High Court being the highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective
without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court
will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary
((1992) 4 SCC 305); Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
(AIR 1964 SC 1) and Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar ((2006) 4
SCC 359)."
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
Similarly, in Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. ; (2017) 13 SCC 369, after
referring to several other cases, including State of Haryana and others v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal ; AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded and made
following observations in Paragraph No. 41 :
"41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482
CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice.
In case solemn process of court is sought to be abused by a
person with some oblique motive, the court has to thwart the
attempt at the very threshold. The court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as
illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal ; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Judicial process is a
solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted
into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are
materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceeding under Category (7) as enumerated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), which is to the following effect:
"102. ... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge."
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts
of the present case, materials on which final report was
submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present
is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal
proceedings."
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
8. On the aforesaid touchstone, if we revert to the facts in case and visit
the complaint carefully, the gravamen of the indictment against accused is that
after marriage dated 18.06.2018 between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2,
complainant was treated properly but only for initial days of the marriage. On
carefully scrutinizing the complaint, it is emerging that according to her, all
accused persons taunted her for bringing less dowry. She has alleged that
sister-in-law and mother-in law provided her insufficient food. In spite of she
being pregnant, she was not cared for and was rather made to go to her
parents' place for delivery. She has alleged that accused persons visited her
there and advised her to undergo abortion. She has alleged that after delivery,
accused persons brought her back and she was properly treated only for a
period of 15 days or so and thereafter, again she was subjected to cruelty. This
time she has alleged demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing house and only
because of her inability to raise the amount, she was abused, beaten and
driven out of the house.
9. On giving conscious thought to the nature of complaint by respondent
no. 2, it is revealed that there are sweeping, general allegations against all the
applicants herein. As to when alleged episodes occurred and who amongst the
eight accused-applicants played which role is not specified in the complaint.
Allegations levelled are apparently omnibus and vague in nature as there are
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
no details or particulars of nature of ill treatment except alleging beating and
abuse, that too at the sole instance of husband. However, even such allegations
against husband are omnibus in nature.
10. Law is squarely settled and time and again, higher courts have held that
on account of marital discord, there is growing tendency of levelling
allegations by blowing it out of proportion. Persons, even when they are
distantly related, are also tried to be roped in. On coming across several cases
of such nature, Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments have cautioned that
abuse of process of law should not be allowed to be continued and it should be
nipped at the bud. Making innocent persons face criminal prosecution
amounts to injustice and therefore, in deserving cases which are patently false
and bogus, courts have not hesitated in exercising the powers under section
482 of Cr.P.C. only with intention to meet ends of justice or to secure justice. In
this context, it would be useful to refer to few landmark cases as under:
(1) Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. ; (2012) 10 SCC 741
(2) Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand ; AIR 2010 SC 3362
(3) K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana ; (2018) 14 SCC 452
11. Bearing above exposition of law in mind, if we go to the complaint at
the instance of respondent no.2 herein, we are convinced that allegations are
apparently either general or petty in nature. Complaint is conspicuously silent
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
about when the alleged episodes of ill-treatment took place as it seems that
marriage is of 18.06.2018, but complaint seems to have been lodged on
24.06.2021 i.e. three years after marriage between applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2. Apart from levelling allegations against husband for abuse
and beating, allegation against all is that they taunted her for bringing less
dowry. Allegation attributed to sister-in-law and mother-in-law is regarding
insufficient food. Subsequently, after delivery, for the first time she has alleged
regarding demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, it is evident that non-specific,
general and rather sweeping allegations are levelled against one and all. We
are more than convinced that it is a clear attempt to harass the entire in-laws
by roping the entire family. Therefore, in our considered opinion, prosecution
of applicants with such quality of allegations would amount to sheer abuse of
process of law and we deem it a fit case for exercise of powers bestowed under
section 482 of Cr.P.C. The case in hand squarely attracts clause (7) of the
guidelines enumerated in para 108 of the judgment in State of Haryana and
others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal ; AIR 1992 SC 604. Hence, the applicants succeed.
Having made out a case on merits for indulgence at the hands of this court,
application deserves to be allowed and we accordingly pass the following
order:
ORDER
I. The application is allowed.
CRI.APPLN-1460-2021.odt
II. Crime vide FIR No. 270 of 2021 registered at Amalner Police Station,
District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 of IPC and the consequential charge sheet vide R.C.C. No. 25 of 2022
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amalner, are
quashed and set aside.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
VRE
