Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O. Madhukarrao ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Umred, ... on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
2023:BHC-NAG:15038-DB
Judgment 1 903-J.Cri.APL No.1030.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1030 OF 2023
Kishor S/o Madhukarrao Panchgade,
Aged about 37 years, Occu. - Lawyer,
R/o. Samarth Colony, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, District Amravati. .... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Umred,
District Nagpur Gramin.
2) Shital W/o Swaraj Shrirao,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o. C/o. Ashok Zade,
Jeevan Vikas, Umred
Nagpur Gramin. .... RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1/State.
Mr. A.S. Dhore, Advocate for respondent No.2.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.
DATED : 12.10.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Vinay Joshi, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
Judgment 2 903-J.Cri.APL No.1030.2023.odt
3. This is an application seeking to quash the First
Information Report relating to Crime No.418/2023, registered with
Police Station, Umred, Nagpur Gramin for an offence punishable
under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC).
4. The applicant primly came to this Court by canvasing
the total non-applicability provisions of Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code on the premise that he does not relate to the husband of
informant lady. Moreover, it is submitted that the allegations are
vague, general and made, out of vengeance. The learned counsel
for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another ,
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757, to contend that the persons who are
totally disconnected with the informant by way of relation, cannot
be involved in the proceeding under Section 498A of the IPC.
5. The informant lady got married with one Swaraj
Shriravo (co-accused) on 09.05.2023. After marriage, she resumed
to cohabit with her husband and in-laws. There was persistent
dowry demand at the hands of her husband and his family members.
So far as the applicant is concerned, it is informant's case that he
distantly relates with her husband. She alleges that the applicant
was Senior lawyer with whom her husband was junior. It is
Judgment 3 903-J.Cri.APL No.1030.2023.odt
contended that at the time of settlement of marriage, the applicant
vouched about the conduct of her husband as well as stated that her
husband earns near-about Rs.50,000/-per month. She stated that
on 15.07.2023, the applicant participated in the meeting wherein
applicant raised monetary demand of Rs.5 Lakhs for purchase of a
car.
6. In view of decision of U. Suvetha (supra) the meaning of
term "relative" is to be construed as relation by blood, marriage or
adoption. This Court in case of Criminal Application (APL) No.
1054/2022 (Abdul Salim Ahmad Abdul Jabbar and another Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 12.07.2023 has once
again considered the term "relative" and observed that the distant
relative cannot be termed as a relative within the meaning of
Section 498A of the IPC. In view of said position, the applicant, who
is merely a senior of her husband in legal profession, cannot be
booked for the provisions under Section 498A of the IPC.
7. So far as allegations regarding demand of dowry is
concerned, there is no material at all. Though there is reference that
applicant has participated in the meeting and raised the demand of
Rs.5 Lakhs for purchase of car, the said demand does not relates to
the dowry as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Judgment 4 903-J.Cri.APL No.1030.2023.odt
8. Taking overall view of the matter, it reveals that the
applicant is not related to the informant, but merely a professional
Senior of her husband and therefore, continuation of prosecution
against him amounts to abuse of the process of Court. In the
circumstances, we are inclined to invoke our inherent jurisdiction.
Hence, the application is allowed. We hereby quash and set aside
the FIR relating to Crime No.418/2023, registered with Police
Station, Umred, Nagpur Gramin for an offence punishable under
Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to the
extent of applicant only.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/10/2023 19:38:04
