Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O Janrao Solanke And Another vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Daryapur ... on 22 December, 2023
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi, M.W. Chandwani
2023:BHC-NAG:17641-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1127 OF 2023
1. Ganesh s/o Janrao Solanke, aged about
31 years, Occ. Student (Brother in law)
2. Baldev s/o Janrao Solanke, aged about
28 years, Occ-Student (Brother in law)
... APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, P.S. Daryapur,
Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati.
2. Manisha w/o Kishor Solanke, aged
about 27 years, Occ - household,
Permanent R/o C/o Ambadas Pawar
Panjabra Colony, Shendgaon,
Tq.Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati,
Presently R/o Plot No.64 Jin Plot
Banosa Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati.
... NON-APPLICANTS.
_____________________________________________________________
Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Badar, Addl.P.P. for the State
Shri V.A. Lohia, Advocate for non-applicant no.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 22.12.2023.
2
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
Heard. ADMIT.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants who are brother-in-laws of the
informant seek to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime
No.464 of 2023 registered with the Daryapur Police Station, Amravati
Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on account of absence of prima
facie case and the allegations are vague, general.
4. The informant lady aged 27 years got married with the
applicants' brother Kishor on 20.05.2017. After the marriage, she
resumed to cohabit with her husband and other family members at
village Chohatta Bazar, Tq. Akot. At relevant time, the informant's
father-in-law was residing at Telhara due to his police service. The
applicants were also staying at Telhara with their father.
5. It is the informant's case that after few days from the
marriage, she was subjected to matrimonial harassment. Her grate-
grand mother-in-law used to harass and abuse her. The informant was
beaten by her husband on an often. She has levelled various allegations
against her husband, grate-grand mother-in-law and father in-law. As
regards to the applicants (brother-in-law), she alleges that both used to
instigate her husband by saying false things. They used to say to her
husband as to why he is allowing the informant to stay there. It is
alleged that at the instance of saying of all the relatives including
applicants, her husband used to quarrel and harass. She stated that
once the applicant Baldev drove her out of the house. With these
allegations she has lodged the report.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit
that there are no specific and distinct allegations against either of the
applicants, who are the brother-in-law of the informant. Particularly, it
is argued that since the marriage, the couple was staying separately at
village Chohatta Bazar whilst the applicants were staying with their
father at Telhara, which is 30 kilometers away. It is submitted that both
applicants are preparing for MPSC competitive examination.
Particularly, the letter has been produced to show that applicant Ganesh
has been selected in State Reserved Police Force. It is contended that
due to pendency of criminal case, the applicant would put to great
ignominy and inflict a permanent scare. There is also likelihood that
they may loose their career prospects.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the informant
would submit that there are specific allegations about harassment at
the hands of the applicants too. It is submitted that the distance
between Chohatta Bazar and Telhara is 30 kilometers, therefore it was
easy for the applicants to frequently visit and harass the informant. It is
submitted that though the applicants produced documents that they
were studying at Khamgaon however the place of residence was at
Telhara.
8. Besides that learned counsel for the informant would
submit that at this stage, the Court shall not embark into evaluating the
material adduced, which is essentially a matter of trial and to that
regard, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of
Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. (2014) 7 SCC 215 .
Learned Counsel for the informant further submits that the plea of alibi
is a matter of defence which cannot be considered at this stage. In this
regard, he would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in cases of
Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and anr. vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav
Spinners Private Limited (2009) 11 SCC 529 and Rajendra Singh vs.
State of U.P. and another (2007) 7 SCC 378. Those cases would not
render any assistance since the case in hand pertains to matrimonial
offence. The allegations are pertaining to the matrimonial cruelty and
thus, it is not a case in real sense to establish ailibi. It is the applicants'
contention that they are residing separately at Telhara, which is not
disputed. The applicants may stay at Khamgaon or may not, but there is
no dispute about their separate residence.
9. The learned Counsel for the informant by relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs.
Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and ors. With one another case (1996) 1 SCC 542
would submit that the allegations of mala fides can be assessed at the
time of trial. In the context of the case in under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 those observations have been made.
10. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 we are
well guided by the guideline set out by the Supreme Court in the
decision of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 in
paragraph 108, which runs as below :
"1. When 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 offence 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 offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
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 offence and make out a case against the
accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR of
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provision of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggravated party.
7. Where a criminal proceedings 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."
11. In the light of the said observations we have assessed the
entire material. It reveals that principal allegations are against the
husband. Apparently, it is alleged in general sense that the applicants
(brother-in-laws) used to taunt and instigate the informant's husband.
12. Learned Counsel for the applicant's relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and ors. vs.
State of Bihar and ors. 2022 0 AIR(SC) 820 , wherein the Supreme
Court has deprecated the tendency of involving husband's all family
members in a criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is
also observed that general and omni bus allegations cannot manifest in
a situation where the relatives of complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It is also observed that allegations of general and
omnibus nature can at best be said to have been made out of skirmishes
and do not warrant prosecution.
13. Our attention has also been invited to the decision of this
Court in case of Sayyad Rahmat Ali and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
and anr. 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 1089, wherein it is observed that isolated
instance cannot be construed to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC. The applicants further relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta and anr. vs. State
of Jharkhand and anr. AIR 2010 SCC 3363 to contend that the relatives
of husband residing in different place, cannot be put on trial in absence
of specific allegations.
14. Apparently, the informant has not stated any specific
instance as to when the applicants have either taunted or instigated her
husband. The allegations are vague, general and omnibus. Besides
isolated instance, alleging applicant Baldev forcing her to go away
there is nothing against them. Moreover, admittedly, both applicants
are educated, aspirants for government job and residing separately with
their father at Telhara. Certainly continuation of prosecution on vague
and general allegations against the relatives, would mar their prospect.
15. Having regard to the above facts, we are not convinced
about existence of prima facie case to put both applicants (brother-in-
laws) to undergo the ordeal of long drawn trial.
16. In view of that, the application is allowed. We hereby quash
and set aside the First Information Report bearing Crime No.464 of
2023 registered with the Daryapur Police Station, Amravati Rural for
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code as regards to the present applicants.
17. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/12/2023 14:58:25
