Sandip Laxman Parkhe And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 12204 Bom

                                   {1}                CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2020

 1.       Sandip Laxman Parkhe
          Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service

 2.       Shri Laxman Vitthalrao Parkhe
          Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service

 3.       Sudarshan Laxman Parkhe
          Age: 38 years, Occu.: Business,

 4.       Sonali Sudarshan Parkhe
          Age: 34 years, Occu.: Household,

 5.       Arvind Laxman Parkhe
          Age: 33 years, Occu.: Service

 6.       Kirti Arvind Parakhe
          Age: 27 years, Occu.: Household,

 7.       Vijay Laxman Parkhe
          Age: 24 years, Occu.: Service,
          All R/o. Nateshwar Colony,
          Wakharkar Nagar, Dhule

 8.       Dipak Laxman Parkhe
          Age: 32 years, Occu.: Service

 9.       Manisha Dipak Parkhe
          Age: 25, Occ.: Household,
          Both R/o. : Vishal Nagar, New
          D.P.Road, Pune 27.                          ..Applicants

                                 VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra

 2.       Sau. Namrata Sandeep Parkhe
          Age: 25 years, Occu.: Household,
          R/o. : C/o. Sunil Prabhakar Markad
          "Prabhuchaya", Gut No.54/2,
          Plot No.4/2, Shiv Colony, Jalgaon.         ..Respondents
                                         (No.2 - Orig. Complainant)




::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2022                 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2022 05:11:18 :::
                                      {2}              CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020


                                     ...
                   Advocate for Applicants : Mr. A.D.Sonar
                  APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.A.M.Phule
                Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.Y.H.Jadhav
                                     ...
                      CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
                                 ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

DATE : 28th November, 2022

JUDGMENT :- ( PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)

. Present criminal application is fled with prayers for

quashing of Crime No.40 of 2019 registered at Ramanand Nagar,

Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the ofence punishable under

Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, and R.C.C. No.400 of 2019, pending on the fle of

VIIth Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon.

2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under

provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

quashing of aforesaid crime and criminal proceedings arising out

of it.

Learned Advocate for the applicants apprised us about the

status and relations of all the applicants herein inter se between

themselves and respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the

applicants would point out that respondent No.2 wife of applicant

No.1 has fled false and concocted complaint with afterthought

{3} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

allegations. He took us through the First Information Report

fled at the instance of respondent No.2. He would strenuously

submit that complainant has apparently roped in entire family

members of applicant No.1 husband with an ulterior motive to

harass all of them. There was no ill-treatment as alleged in the

complaint. It is pointed out that complaint is based on the vague

allegations. Complainant has not defned roles played by each of

the applicants. Only due to annoyance, entire family members of

applicant No.1 have been roped in. Some of the applicants, who

have no concern, are also implicated even when they are

residing at diferent places. It is pointed out that before lodging

instant complaint, respondent No.2 has instituted multiple

proceedings like proceeding under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, proceeding for maintenance etc. He

further submits that in fact, respondent No.2 herself was not

interested in cohabiting with applicant No.1 husband and in-laws

and therefore, with oblique motive above complaint, which is

with malicious intention, is required to be quashed and set aside

as it amounts to clear abuse of process of law.

3. Learned APP for respondent No.1-State opposed application

on the ground that respondent No.2 has defned the role of

applicants including husband in giving ill-treatment to

{4} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

respondent No.2. She was subjected to harassment not only by

husband but even by other in-laws and they have stripped her of

her Sridhan. It is pointed out that even on petty counts, there

was ill-treatment to respondent No.2 at the hands of applicants.

Investigation is complete. There is ample material of

involvement of the applicants. Therefore, it is submitted that

prosecution deserves chance to prosecute the applicants.

4. Learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - complainant also

opposed application and submitted that shortly after marriage,

applicants started taunting on her looks. Applicants ill-treated

and harassed respondent No.2 and made her life miserable.

There was mental cruelty coupled with physical ill-treatment for

not meeting demand of Rs.4,50,000/-. Therefore, when her life

become miserable and when she was driven out of the house,

she approached Police and lodged the instant complaint. In the

investigation, it was revealed that there is involvement of

applicants. Therefore, in view of the acts done by them, they are

liable to be prosecuted. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the

application.

5. After hearing respective sides, when this Court expressed

disinclination to grant relief to applicant No.1 husband, learned

{5} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

Advocate for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to

withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No.1.

Application to the extent of applicant No.1 is dismissed as

withdrawn.

6. On going through the FIR, it is seen that respondent No.2

was married to applicant No.1 on 9 th February, 2015. Complaint

fnds names of husband and all applicants herein. After stating

about household articles given in marriage, complainant has

alleged that applicants have took out her sridhan from her

person and retained by them. According to her, applicant

Nos.1, 4 to 6 and 8 taunted her and commented on her look by

saying that she is not suitable for applicant No.1 and she was

insulted. Accused Nos.4 and 9 (sisters-in-law) also taunted her

by saying that she is unable to cook. There seems to be

allegation of demand of Rs.4,50,000/- by all the applicants for re-

payment of some loan. She has also alleged that she was

pressurized for not conceiving and applicant No.1 threatened to

give divorce to her.

7. Here provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure have been invoked. By slew of judgments the Hon'ble

Apex Court time and again held, as to when powers under

{6} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) should be

exercised by the High Court.

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 efect 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 justifed by the tests specifcally laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justifed in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specifc provisions in the statute."

Similarly, 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

{7} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give efect 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 infexible 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 fnds 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 such exercise is justifed by the tests specifcally 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 justifed to quash any proceeding if it fnds that initiationccontinuance 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 stife a legitimate prosecution.

{8} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

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 sufcient 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)."

8. The Hon'ble Apex court in its landmark case, i.e. State of

Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604,

after conducting a detailed study of the situations as to when

court may exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction, the Hon'ble

Apex Court laid down guidelines and circumstances under which

it would be appropriate to quash proceedings. It would be

proftable to reproduce the guidelines under which abuse of

process of law could be prevented and the same are as under :-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any ofence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable ofence, justifying an investigation by police ofcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

                                           {9}                    CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020




         (3)      Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any ofence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable ofence but constitute only a non-cognizable ofence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufcient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings andcor where there is a specifc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fde andcor 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."

9. In such legal background, if the FIR herein is carefully

studied, it is revealed that specifc allegations are

{10} CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020

levelled against applicant No.1 husband. Even in the statements

of relatives recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, prima-facie allegations are against applicant No.1

husband. However, application of applicant No.1 is dismissed as

withdrawn. As regards to applicant Nos.2 to 9, we are of the

opinion that allegations against them are omnibus as no specifc

details are given. Sweeping allegations are made against all of

them which are of similar in nature.

10. Therefore, in the light of the principles and guidelines laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal

(supra), the case in hand falls under the category of clause 7 of

the said guidelines. Continuation of proceedings against

applicant Nos.2 to 9 would defnitely amount to abuse of process

of law. With the nature of allegations and quality of material

available on record, it would be hazardous to allow them to face

prosecution. Hence, application of applicant Nos.2 to 9 deserves

to be allowed. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following

order :

ORDER

(i) Application is partly allowed.

                                      {11}                CRI APPLN 56 OF 2020


       (ii)    Application of applicant No.1 - husband is dismissed as
       withdrawn.

(iii) Application of applicant Nos.2 to 9 is hereby allowed. Crime bearing No.40 of 2019 registered at Ramanand Nagar Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the ofence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and R.C.C. No.400 of 2019 pending on the fle of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jalgaon, are hereby quashed and set aside as against applicant Nos.2 to 9.

( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ) JUDGE JUDGE

SPT