Prateek Subhash Patil And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11525 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:24674-DB


                                                          1                               APPLN.362.2023.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.362 OF 2023


              1)    Prateek Subhash Patil.
              2)    Subhash Ganpat Patil.
              3)    Asha Subhash Patil.
              4)    Pratiksha Subhash Patil.                            ... Applicants

                        Versus

              1) The State of Maharashtra.
              2) Priyanka Pratik Patil.                                 ... Respondents

                                                   ...
              Mr. Nasimoddin R. Shaikh & Ms. Jameela Damani, Advocate for Applicants.
              Mr. P. N. Kutti, APP for Respondent No.1 / State.
              Mr. Yogesh H. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                   ...


                                                   CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT and
                                                           SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                                                   DATE       :   08th November, 2023.


              O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)


              1                  Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.


              2                  This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashment of FIR and the consequential

charge-sheet in RCC No.137 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, for the offences punishable

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

Penal Code, 1860.

                                           2                               APPLN.362.2023.odt




3                  The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions,

withdraws the application of applicant No.1/husband of the respondent/

informant.

4 The informant averred in the FIR that she married with

applicant No.1 on 11th May, 2013. Thereafter, she continuously

cohabited till January, 2017. Meanwhile, she was treated with cruelty

by beating and threatening to kill her by the applicants. She was

slapped. Since she could not beget child, she was harassed on that

count also. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home in January, 2017

and started to reside with her parents. She lodged the report on 27th

September, 2022. Applicant No.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and

applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law.

5 The learned counsel for applicants submitted that the

informant has left the matrimonial home in January, 2017 and FIR is

lodged on 27th September, 2022. Thus, the report is barred by

limitation. He is relying on the authority of Arun Vyas and another Vs.

Anita Vyas, (1999) 4 Supreme Court Cases 690, in which it is held that

in the absence of explanation more three years delay caused for

lodging report, the complaint is barred by limitation.

6                  The learned counsel for the applicants pointed out that





                                              3                              APPLN.362.2023.odt

applicant No.1 filed application for restitution of conjugal rights, which

was dismissed. Thereafter, applicant No.1 filed application for

declaring for nullity of marriage. He submitted that there is no specific

incident pointing out alleged incident of cruelty on the part of the

applicants. He prayed to allow the application.

7 The learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for

informant strongly opposed the application. They submitted that there

are specific allegations against the applicants that they treated the

informant with cruelty. The names of the applicants are mentioned in

the FIR. There is prima-facie evidence against the applicants. They

lastly prayed to reject the application.

8 Perused the charge-sheet. The FIR itself shows that the

informant left the matrimonial house in January, 2017 and FIR is

lodged on 27th September, 2022. Thus, the FIR lodged after three

years is barred by limitation, as per the judgment in case Section 468

of Cr.P.C. as held in the case of Arun Vyas and another Vs. Anita Vyas

(supra), cited by the learned counsel for applicants. Considering this

aspect of limitation and other litigation between the informant and

applicant No.1, there is no prima-facie evidence of cruelty on the part

of applicant Nos.2 to 4 to proceed against them. It would be abuse of

the process of Court. The application, therefore, deserves to be

4 APPLN.362.2023.odt

allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 to 4. The application is,

therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), to the extent of

applicant Nos.2 to 4 only. The application of applicant No.1 stands

disposed of as withdrawn. No costs.

      [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]                 [ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
nga