Bombay High Court
Sandip Nagsen Gajbhiye And 6 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Yavatmal , ... on 9 June, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1 21 apl33.22(J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 33 OF 2022
APPLICANTS : 1] Sandip Nagsen Gajbhiye,
Aged about 36 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Dhamangaon, Dist. Amravati.
(Application is dismissed as withdrawn against
this applicant as per Court's order dtd.13.01.22)
2] Kamla Nagsen Gajbhiye,
Aged about 55 years, Occu. Housewife,
3] Nagsen Fagoji Gajbhiye,
Aged about 62 years, Occu. Agriculturist,
Applicant nos.2 and 3 are R/o Pimpalgaon
Nipani, Nandgaon, Amravati.
4] Sunil Nagsen Gajbhiye,
Aged about 33 years, Occu. Service,
5] Sapna Nagsen Gajbhiye,
Aged about 32 years, Occu. Household.
Applicant nos. 4 and 5 are R/o C/o Vijay
Khampre, Arjun Nagar, Amravati.
6] Vimal Suresh Meshram,
Aged about 50 years, Occu. Housewife,
7] Suresh Somaji Meshra,
Aged about 59 years, Occu. Nothing,
Applicant nos. 6 and 7 are R/o Near Chandure
Kirana Dukan, Deepak Nagar, Rahatgaon
Plot, Shivaji Nagar, Amravati.
VERSUS
2 21 apl33.22(J).odt
NON-APPLICANTS : 1] State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Office,
Police Station, Yavatmal,
Yavatmal.
2] Kavita Sandip Gajbhiye,
Aged about 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o C/o Bhagwan Gajbhiye,
Ambika Nagar, Yavatmal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Abdul Subhan, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the non-applicant no.1/State
Shri V. D. Awachat, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE and G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 09, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent.
3. On going through the material, namely the first
information report and also the statements of witnesses subsequently
recorded, we find that there is clear cut prima facie case which is
made out against the applicant nos.2 and 3, against whom the crime
3 21 apl33.22(J).odt
in question has been registered along with the other accused persons.
There are specific allegations made against applicant nos.2 and 3,
who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant/non-
applicant no.2. These allegations refer to the acts of cruelty and
harassment committed by both these applicants. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the allegations made against applicant nos.2 and 3 are
vague and omnibus in nature.
4. As regards the remaining applicants i.e. applicant nos.4,
5, 6 and 7, we are of the view that the position is quite different. Of
course, Shri Awachat, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2
registered his strong opposition in the matter and submits that even
against these applicants strong prima facie case is there as these
applicants are alleged to have instigated the applicant nos.2 and 3
i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant, in
committing their various acts of harassment and cruelty vis-a-vis the
complainant. However, upon a careful perusal of the first information
report and also the statements of the witnesses, we find that the
factual scenario is quite different. The only allegation against
applicant nos. 4 to 7 is of their instigating the mother-in-law and
4 21 apl33.22(J).odt
father-in-law in subjecting the complainant to cruelty and
harassment. It is not stated by the complainant as to the manner in
which the instigation was given by these applicants. In fact, the
complainant admits that since 2017 she has been residing along with
her husband separately from the house of parents of her husband.
5. It is also not in dispute that these applicant nos.4 to 7
are residing separately from the couple. In these circumstances, it
was essential on the part of the complainant to have elaborated upon
the manner in which instigation has been allegedly provided by these
applicants to the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant
to harass her. That is not the case here. Therefore, we are of the
view that these allegations of instigation are general and omnibus in
nature. On this basis no first information report ought to have been
registered against these applicants and now if the charge-sheet has
been filed, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar
Mohatta and aother .vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home
and another, reported as (2019) 11 SCC 706, the wrong which was
committed initially by filing wrong first information report against
these applicants, which was in the nature of abuse of process of law,
5 21 apl33.22(J).odt
has now been aggravated and therefore, so far as these applicants
are concerned, even though during pendency of this application the
charge-sheet has been filed thereby creating alternate statutory
remedy for these applicants, the applicants would be entitled to
invoke power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
6. In the result, this application deserves to be partly
allowed. The application of applicant nos.2 and 3 deserves to be
dismissed and application of applicant nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 deserves to
be allowed. The application of applicant no.1 has already been
dismissed as withdrawn as per the orders of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the criminal application is partly allowed.
i] Application of applicant no.2 - Kamla Nagsen Gajbhiye ;
and applicant no.3 - Nagsen Fagoji Gajbhiye, stands dismissed.
ii] Application of applicant no.1 - Sandip Nagsen Gajbhiye,
husband of the complainant/non-applicant no.2, has already been
dismissed as withdrawn.
6 21 apl33.22(J).odt
iii] Application of applicant no.4 - Sunil Nagsen Gajbhiye ;
applicant no.5 - Sapna Nagsen Gajbhiye ; applicant no.6 - Vimal
Suresh Meshram ; and applicant no.7 - Suresh Somaji Meshram, is
hereby allowed and the Final Report No. 26/2020 registered as
Summary Criminal Case No. 572/2020 in pursuance of Crime No.
473/2019 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Yavatmal, is hereby
quashed and set aside against them.
8. Rule is made absolute in relation to applicant nos.4, 5, 6
and 7, whereas Rule stands discharged in relation to the remaining
applicants.
(G.A.SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Diwale
Digitally signed byPARAG
PRABHAKARRAO DIWALE
Signing Date:10.06.2022
15:02
