Bombay High Court
Sakhubai Bhagwan Adhav And 4 ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Deulgaon ... on 30 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
1 10apl1174.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1174/2021
1. Sakhubai Bhagwan Adhav,
aged 48 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
2. Sanjay Bhagwan Adhav,
Aged 29 yrs., Occ. Service,
No.1 & 2 R/o. Malipura, Ward No. 17,
Deulgaon Raja, Buldana.
3. Vidya Pravin Kharat,
Aged 31 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
4. Pravin Ramdas Kharat,
Aged 43 yrs, Occ. Service,
5. Thakubai Ashok Fulzade,
Aged 58 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
No. 3 to 5 R/o. Malipura, behind
Sarkari Godown, Ward No.1,
Chikhli, Buldana.
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its P.S.O. Deulgaon Raja,
Buldana,
2. Kiran Vijay Adhav,
Aged 25 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Malipura, Deulgaon Raja, Buldana,
Police Station: Deulgaon Raja.
NON-APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
2 10apl1174.21.odt
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 30.03.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. This is an application seeking to quash First
Information Report in Crime No. 338/2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Deulgaon Raja, Tah.
and Dist. Buldana and also seeks to quash charge-sheet bearing
R.C.C. No. 412/2021 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldana.
4. The applicants are nearer relatives of the husband of
informant lady. They seek to quash FIR and related charge-sheet
on account of false implication. It is submitted that the criminal
proceeding is actuated with mala fide and has been maliciously
instituted by the informant at the behest of her husband. Moreover,
it is submitted that the allegations levelled in the report are general
and vague.
5. The application is resisted by the learned APP and
learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No.2-informant. It
is submitted that FIR specifically spells out the role of applicants
3 10apl1174.21.odt
and demand of dowry. According to informant, there is sufficient
material to put the applicants for trial.
6. This case has peculiar facts of its own, that the husband
has not been made accused rather the informant lady has praised
her husband in FIR stating that his behavour is quite good and
sober. She has levelled allegation against relatives of husband.
Reading of FIR and related statement discloses that all the
applicants allegedly harassed the informant by raising monetary
demand. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that during
pendency of this application, the matter was settled and
accordingly, the informant has signed on the joint application, but
later refused. True, the settlement was not materialized, however it
appear that the informant made a statement in her joint application
about filing of FIR under misunderstanding.
7. It is submitted that applicant Nos. 2 to 5 never resided
in the shared household. Applicant No. 2 is brother of husband,
who is said to be staying in Mumbai. Applicant No. 2 has produced
appointment letter as well as identity card to show that he is serving
with the Ministry of Defence and posted at Mazagaon Dock Ship
Builders, Mumbai. Prima facie, it is evident that applicant No. 2
Sanjay never resided in shared household. Moreover, it is
submitted that applicant No. 3 is married sister who is residing
separately with her husband i.e. applicant No. 4 at Taluka Chikhali,
4 10apl1174.21.odt
District Buldana. So also, applicant No. 5 is also resident of
Chikhali i.e. away from Deulgaon Raja, where couple resided. In
that context, we have examined the statement of the witnesses
which do not convey any instance, besides general and omnibus
allegations.
8. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of
Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of
Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the learned counsel for
applicant would submit that, on the basis of general and omnibus
allegations, the proceeding under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code would not stand. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has
cautioned that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in matrimonial dispute. In that context, we do not
see any specific allegation against either of the applicant. It is
submitted that the informant lady is happily residing with her
husband at different place. It is strange that she has no grievance
against her husband rather having good relation, but is making
grievance against the family members of the husband. In this
background, possibility of husband being preparator against his
own family cannot be ruled out. The fact of this case clearly falls in
category No. 7 as laid down by the Supreme Court in case of State
of Haryana Vs. Bajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.
5 10apl1174.21.odt
9. In view of above facts, it is evident that the
continuation of such prosecution would be abuse of the process of
the Court. In the circumstances, we are inclined to exercise our
inherent jurisdiction. Hence, application is allowed. We hereby
quash and set aside First Information Report in Crime No.
338/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police
Station Deulgaon Raja, Tah. and Dist. Buldana and also related
charge-sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 412/2021 pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldana.
(BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
