Mahadeo S/O. Vishnu Waghmare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2939 Bom

                                                                    68.crl.APPLN.3072.19.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3072 OF 2019

1       Mahadeo S/o Vishnu Waghmare,
        Age-29 years, Occu.: Labour,

2       Sitabai W/o Vishnu Waghmare,
        Age-65 years, Occu.: Household,

3       Balasaheb S/o Vishnu Waghmare,
        Age-27 years, Occu.: Labour,
        All R/o Govardhan Hivra,
        Tq. Parli (V), Dist. Beed.                   ...       APPLICANTS

              VERSUS
1       The State of Maharashtra
        Through Police Station Sirsala,
        Tq. Parli (V), Dist. Beed.
2       Jyoti W/o Mahadeo Waghmare
        Age: 20 Years, Occu: Household,
        R/o Govardhan Hivra, at present
        Mohkhed, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.             ...    RESPONDENTS
                                        ...
                    Mr. B.R. Sable, Advocate for the applicants
                     Mr. V.S. Badakh, APP Respondent/State
                 Mr. S.B. Solanke, Advocate for respondent No.2
                                         ...
                              CORAM            : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                  ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.


                                   DATE        : 27.03.2023

ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure seeking quashment of Crime No.0103/2019 registered with Police

Station Sirsala, Tq. Parli (V.), Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under

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

and the consequent charge-sheet and the criminal case R.C.C. No.133/2019

68.crl.APPLN.3072.19.odt

pending on the file of learned Magistrate at Parli.

2. The FIR alleges that the respondent No.2 was married to the

applicant No.1 on 16.04.2016. It is necessary to note at this stage itself that

there seems to be an error in mentioning the date of the marriage. The

learned advocate for the respondent No.2 admits that it was solemnized on

17.04.2017. It is alleged that after marriage when she started cohabiting

with the applicants who are the husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law,

she was maintained peacefully for three to four months thereafter they

started insisting her to bring money from her mother and brother for

purchasing land. She informed the matter to her grandfather Sarjerao

Shankarrao Chopde and mother, who tried to convince the applicants but in

vain. It was ultimately declared that they would maintain her only if she

was able to bring money. She was assaulted repeatedly and the mother-in-

law and brother-in-law abused her. She was kept starving and by suspecting

her character she was driven out about 1 ½ years prior to the FIR dated

02.05.2019.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the allegations

are vague and omnibus besides being improbable. The FIR has been lodged

in May 2019 that is just after two years of marriage. Accepting the

statement in the FIR that she was driven out 1 ½ years prior to the lodging

of the FIR, it would be apparent that she cohabited in the matrimonial home

not even for six months out of which even she admits that she was

maintained properly for three to four months. There was no time in

68.crl.APPLN.3072.19.odt

between these two dates to comprehend as to if she was really subjected to

any ill-treatment. It would be misuse of the process of law if based on such

vague and omnibus allegations the applicants are allowed to face the

prosecution.

4. Learned APP and the learned advocate for the respondent No.2

oppose the application. They submit that there are sufficient allegation. The

charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecution should get fair opportunity to lead

evidence. The FIR cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia and the

application be rejected.

5. We have perused the papers. After we express our

disinclination to grant any relief to the applicant No.1 who is the husband,

his learned advocate, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the

application to his extent.

6. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnized on 17.04.2017. The

FIR reads that the applicants maintain the respondent No.2 properly for first

three to four months and it also reads that she was driven out about 1 ½

year prior to the lodging of the FIR. This leaves a window of around three

to four months for the period in which the allegations being levelled will

have to fit in.

7. Since the offence is registered as a sequel to a matrimonial

dispute, no importance can be attached to the fact that all the applicants

have been named not only in the FIR but even in the statements of the

witnesses.

68.crl.APPLN.3072.19.odt

8. This being a proceeding invoking the powers of this Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we understand the

limitations on the powers of this Court. No full fledged inquiry can be

undertaken to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the allegations.

Simultaneously, the usual tendency to rope in all the relations of the

husband while lodging the complaint is often commented by the Supreme

Court in plethora of judgments namely Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs.

State of U.P. and Anr.; AIR 2013 SC 181, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and

Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Preeti Gupta and

Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and anr; AIR 2010 SC 3363.

9. It is trite that FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. But

then, when an offence is registered pursuant to the FIR and the investigating

officer undertakes investigation and files a charge sheet, it is imperative that

there must be some material to demonstrate involvement of each of the

accused in commission of the crime. A conjoint reading of the FIR and the

papers of the investigation demonstrates that the respondent No.2 was

meted out the alleged cruelty during a period of two to three months. The

allegations in the FIR have merely been repeated by the grandfather of the

respondent No.2 and her mother with equal vagueness. No specific and

exclusive overt act is attributed to the applicant Nos.2 and 3. Along with

the applicant No.1 they have merely been named in respect of the alleged

demand, subsequent allegations regarding her character and the ill-

treatment meted out to her.

68.crl.APPLN.3072.19.odt

10. True it is that couple of independent witnesses have come

forward namely Dattu Shankar Waghmare and Vitthal Bhaurao Ghodke

whose statements were recorded on 03.05.2019 and they have mentioned

about having heard that a quarrel was going on in the house of the applicant

in about three to four months after the date of marriage and that on their

inquiry respondent No.2 having told them about the demand for money and

the ill-treatment meted out to her by these applicants. If their version is to

be accepted, it would be a hearsay one.

11. With the vague and omnibus statements the applicant Nos.2

and 3 are being made to face the prosecution. The quality of material

collected by the investigating officer fits this case in the category of the cases

those were before the Supreme Court (supra).

12. It would be abuse of the process as laid down in the matter of

State of Haryana and Ors. V/s Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.; (1992) SCC (Cri)

426.

13. The Application is partly allowed. The Crime No.0103/2019

registered with Police Station Sirsala, Tq. Parli (V.), Dist. Beed and the

consequent charge sheet and the criminal case R.C.C. No.133/2019 pending

on the file of learned Magistrate, Parli is quashed and set aside to the extent

of the applicant Nos.2 and 3. The application to the extent of applicant

No.1 is dismissed.

   (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)                           (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb