Bombay High Court
Tushar S/O Shashimohan Sirsat And ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Mehkar Ps ... on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 886 OF 2022
1. Tushar s/o Shashimohan Sirsat
(Husband), Age - 38, Occup -
Education, R/o - N-11, C-1 8/4Deep
Nagar, Hudco, Aurangabad, Distt.
Aurangabad.
2. Shashimohan s/o Rajaram Sirsat
(Father-in-law), Age - 66, Occup -
Pensioner, R/o - do.
3. Priti d/o Shashimohan Sirsat (Married
Sister-in-law), (Priti w/o Sudhir Ingle),
Age - 37, Occup - Housewife, R/o - RL
70, Khadki Takali Khurd, Akola - 444
001
4. Nilesh s/o Shashimohan Sirsat (Brother-
in-law), Age - 33, Occup - Education,
R/o-N-11, C-1 8/4 Deep Nagar, Hudco,
Aurangabad.
5. Shubhangi w/o Pradeep Sirsat, (Patrnal
Aunt of Husband), Age - 40, Occup -
Household At present R/o-N-11K, House
No.6/4 Navjivan Colony, Opposite SPI,
Aurangabad.
6. Pradeep s/o Rajaram Sirsat [Paternal
Uncle of husband], Age - 51, Occup -
Private Job, R/o - do.
7. Eknath s/o Mhatarji Shinde, [friend of
Applicant No.2], Age - 67 years, Occup
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 07:48:23 :::
2
- Retired, R/o - Room No. 11, Plot No.
27, Saisidhi CHS, Near IES School,
Charkop Sector 2, Kandivli (West),
Mumbai (Sub Urban)
... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Mehkar Police Station, Buldhana
District Copy to be served on APP
High Court, Nagpur Distt. Nagpur.
2. Ujwala w/o Tushar Sirsat, Age - 31
years, Occu- Household, r/o - C/o
Govind Kisan Khandare, Shikshak
Coloney, Pawansut Nagar, Ward No.
5, Dongaon Road, Mehakar, Tq.
Mehakar, Distt. Buldhana - 443301
... NON-APPLICANTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri N.U. Telgaonkar, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Kadukar, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 19/04/2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
Heard. ADMIT.
2. The matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. This application for seeking to quash the First Information
Report (FIR) in Crime No. 122 of 2022 registered with the Mehakar
Police Station, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and related charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.392 of 2022 pending
on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehakar
4. Respondent no.2 (informant) has lodged the report
regarding the matrimonial harassment. It is the prosecution case, that
respondent no.2 got married with applicant no. 1 Tushar on
11.12.2016. Soon-after the marriage, she resumed to cohabit with
husband, parents in law and brother in law. After few months from the
marriage, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and parents
in law, at the instance of monetary demand. In the year 2018, the
informant delivered a baby girl for which again her husband and other
relatives started to humiliate her. The informant stated that there was
monetary demand of Rs.40 lakhs at the hands of the applicants. She
has stated the incident dated 25.02.2021. When she returned to her
matrimonial house, her husband, father in law and brother in law
abused her, snatched her belongings and driven her out. She has filed
two N.C. reports regarding the alleged harassment. By and large, the
informant has stated about matrimonial harassment at the instance of
the monetary demand.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants would submit that there
are vague and general allegations against all applicants. He has pointed
certain discrepancies to contend that the allegations are not probable.
The informant barely stayed at her matrimonial house for 13 months. It
is submitted that applicant no.3 Priti Sirsat (married sister of husband)
got married in the year 2011 and staying separately with her husband,
who is a judicial officer. It is submitted that applicant no.5 Shubhangi
and applicant no.6 Pradeep are parental aunt and uncle respectively of
the husband, who are residing separately having no concerned with the
couple. Moreover, it is submitted that applicant no.7 Eknath Shinde is
not related with the husband as he is a friend of father-in-law of the
informant. Learned Counsel for the applicants took us through the
several documents to contend that there was an incident of assault for
which the applicants have filed the N.C. report. So also supporting
medical report has been produced.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 2-wife would submit that the applicants' contention is
supported by her parents in their statement recorded by the Police.
There are specific allegations about matrimonial harassment, and thus,
it is a subject matter of trial.
7. We have examined the police papers. There are consistent
allegations against the husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law, who
participated in driving out the informant from the house. Though the
allegations are levelled against the sister-in-law Priti however
undeniably, she got married with a judicial officer, obviously she is
staying with her husband. Though it is canvassed that due to
matrimonial differences, applicant no.3 Priti was staying at her
maternal house but no such statement has made by either of them. As
regards to applicant nos.5 and 6, who are distant relatives are
concerned, beside a single line of allegation about their insistent for
demand on isolated occassion, there is nothing against them.
8. Applicant no.7 Eknath Shinde is not related to the family
and therefore, prima facie it is difficult to hold that he is liable to face
the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
9. It reveals that, the husband has filed a divorce petition
whilst the wife has also filed a proceedings for maintenance. Two N.C.
reports lodged by the wife indicates that there was a dispute for which
the matter has already been reach to the Police. The wife has repeated
allegations against the husband and parents-in-law. Admittedly, mother-
in-law is died. Thus, prima facie the allegations are consistent as
regards to applicant no.1 husband, applicant no. 2 father-in-law and
applicant no.4 brother-in-law. At this stage, we cannot decide worth of
allegations in the writ jurisdiction.
10. The tendency of a women of involving all relatives of the
husband in the matrimonial proceedings is not unknown rather the said
cast a duty on the Courts to minutely examine the allegations and to
see that the relatives shall not be harassed unless there is specific
triable material. In the circumstances, we find no substantial material
against applicant no.3 Priti Sirsat, applicant no. 5 Shubhangi Sirsat,
applicant no.6 Pradeep Sirsat and applicant no.7 Ekanth Shinde. The
case as regards to these applicants are concerned, it is covered under
Clause 7 of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 . The case as regards to
applicant no. 7 Eknath Shinde is concerned, the Supreme Court in cases
of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2010) 11 SCC 618 and U.
Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (2009) 6 SCC 757 held that
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is applicable only to relatives of
husband, by blood, marriage or adoption.
11. As regards to applicant no.1 Tushar Sirsat, applicant no. 2
Shashimohan Sirsat and applicant no.4 Nilesh Sirsat are concerned, at
the threshold the contentions cannot be said to be baseless. In view of
that, the application deserves to be partly allowed, hence following
order :
(a) The application is partly allowed.
(b) We hereby quashed and set aside the First Information
Report (FIR) in Crime No. 122 of 2022 registered with
the Mehakar Police Station, District Buldhana for the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
related charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No.392 of 2022
pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mehakar as regards to only applicant nos.3 and 5 to 7.
12. The application stands disposed of in above terms. No order
as to costs.
(BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
