Bombay High Court
Walmik Ananda Bagul (Patil) And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 November, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
1 Cri. Appln. 1347/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1347 OF 2021
WALMIK ANANDA BAGUL (PATIL) AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sonar Anudeep D.
APP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.J. Salgare
Advocate for the respondent no. 2 : Mr. S.U. Chaudhari
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATE : 10 NOVEMBER 2022
PC :
This is an application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking withdrawal of the FIR and consequent
chargesheet in connection with crime no. 12 of 2021 registered with
Dhule Taluka Police Station, Tq. and District - Dhule for the offences
punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the
allegations in the FIR are as vague as it could be. Respondent no. 2
had cohabitated with applicant no. 1 for 11 years and the couple had
begotten couple of children. There were no previous allegations. For
the first time, grievance was put up in the form of the FIR regarding the
alleged ill-treatment. No specific and precise role is attributed to any of
2 Cri. Appln. 1347/2021
the applicants except the husband. It would be hazardous to make
them face the prosecution with such vague and omnibus allegations.
3. Learned APP and learned advocate for the respondent
no. 2 would take us through the FIR, supplementary statement of the
respondent no. 2 as also the statement of the witnesses who are her
relatives which according to them prima facie corroborate the
allegations. They submit that an opportunity needs to be extended to
the prosecution to lead independent and convincing evidence. There is
no sufficient reason to quash the proceedings at the threshhold.
4. After hearing both the sides, when we expressed our
disinclination to grant any relief to applicants nos. 1 to 3 on mertis, their
learned advocate seeks leave to withdraw the application to their
extent.
5. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others;
(2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
case having a startling similarity of facts with the matter in hand. Like
the present matter, the allegations in the FIR lodged in that matter by
wife were equally vague and omnibus. Collectively by referring to all
the accused, allegations were levelled regarding the alleged ill-
treatment.
3 Cri. Appln. 1347/2021
6. It would be profitable to quote para 18 of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
others (supra) which has been specifically relied on by learned
counsel for the applicants :
"18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal
of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is
revealed that general allegations are levelled
against the appellants. The complainant alleged
that "all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations
have been made against either of the appellants
herein i.e. none of the appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are,
therefore, general and omnibus and can at best
be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is
concerned, since he has not appealed against
the order of the High Court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against
them being general and omnibus, do not
warrant prosecution."
Even in the matter in hand, except saying that even the applicants nos.
4 and 5 were instigating the rest of the applicants in subjecting the
respondent no. 2 to cruelty, no further details can be found. Her
supplementary statement as also the statement of her relatives which
are recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
equally vague. No specific and precise allegations execlusively
attributing role to applicants nos. 4 and 5 can be found.
4 Cri. Appln. 1347/2021
7. In our considered view, the matter deserves to be
considered favourably to the extent of the applicants nos. 4 and 5.
It is clearly an instance where an inference can certainly be discerned
that an attempt has been made to rope in them with some ulterior
motive. The case is squarely covered by the principles laid down in the
matter of Kahkashan Kausar (supra).
8. Application to the extent of applicants nos. 4 and 5 is
allowed.
9. Application to the extent of applicants nos. 1 to 3 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
10. Application is disposed of.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
