Bombay High Court
Sadashiv Shivram Gowardipe And 4 Others vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Shirpur ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:128-DB
Judgment apl1193.22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.1193/2022.
1.Sadashiv Shivram Gowardipe,
Aged about 63 years,
Occupation - Retired.
2.Kusum w/o Sadashiv Gowardipe,
Aged about 51 years,
Occupation - Household,
Both resident of Lathi, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal.
3.Prashant Sadashiv Gowardipe,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation - Service, resident of
Chhoriya Layout, Wani, Taluq
Wani, District Yavatmal.
4.Suvarna Umesh Bonde,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation - Household.
5.Umesh Maroti Bonde,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Service,
Nos.4 and 5 resident of Shirpur,
Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal. ... APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
2
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Shirpur,
District Yavatmal.
2.Damyanti Sunil Gowardipe,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Household, resident
of c/o. Ganesh Bhongale, Belora,
Post Naigaon, Tahsil Wani,
District Yavatmal. ... NON-APPLICANTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms S. Kolhe, A.P.P. for Non-applicant no.1- State.
Mr. G.D. Asole, Advocate for Non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 02, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard. Admit.
By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
2. By this application, applicants are seeking to quash the
first information report bearing Crime No.254/2022 registered with
Shirpur Police Station, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Applicants are parents-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and
husband of sister-in-law of the informant lady. Husband of the
informant is not before us.
3. It is the submission of applicants that the allegations
made in the police report, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in its entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the
offence of matrimonial cruelty. The learned Counsel appearing for
applicants would submit that soon after the marriage, hardly for 10
days the informant stayed at her matrimonial house, and they she
lived with her husband at Nagpur for job. Precisely it is contended
that there was no occasion for the relatives of husband to interact
with the informant and thus, the allegations of cruelty are false.
4. It is submitted that on 10.01.2021, the informant lady left
her matrimonial house, for which the husband has filed a petition for
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
divorce on 20.01.2021. According to applicants, in retaliation the
first information report is lodged with false allegations. Lastly, it is
submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature and
the same are made with a view to harass the husband and his family.
5. The couple got married on 17.05.2013. After few days
from the marriage both started to reside at Nagpur. The informant
alleged that no sooner they went to Nagpur, her husband started to
harass her at the instance of monetary demand. She has stated that
since applicants have instigated her husband, in turn he used to
harass her. The informant lady has stated that on various occasions
her husband used to raise monetary demand as well as physically
assaulted her by consuming liquor. She has stated some instances
about unruly behavior of her husband and his love affair with
another women. Finally she has stated that since there was incessant
monetary demand by the husband, she came back to her parents
house on 10.01.2021. The informant has stated about last incident
that on 25.08.2021, when her parents tried to patch up the
differences, her parents-in-law raised monetary demand of Rs.20
lakhs and drove all of them. With such allegations the informant has
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
lodged the report with the police on 13.08.2021. The matter was
initially referred to Women's Cell and as they could not succeed in
reunion, finally report has been lodged on 23.06.2022.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the informant would
submit that there was persistent monetary demand by the husband.
He has produced certain bank statements to establish that from time
to time money has been transferred pursuant to the monetary
demand. He would submit that the husband was not interested to
live with the informant, hence within 10 days from separation, he
has filed a petition for divorce. He has particularly emphasized that
on 25.08.2021 parents of informant tried to patch up the differences,
however, parents-in-law have raised specific monetary demand of
Rs.20 lakhs and disallowed the informant to stay with them.
7. The learned Counsel for applicants mainly emphasized
that merely on the basis of vague and general allegations, entire
family members cannot be implicated in the matrimonial dispute. In
this regard, he has taken us through the observations of Supreme
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar and others .vrs. State of Bihar
and others - Manu/SC/0163/2022, which reads as below :
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrates that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498A Indian Penal Code and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long
term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the Accused. It is further manifest from
the said judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this Court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is
made out against them.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19,
it is revealed that general allegations are levelled
against the Appellants. The complainant alleged
that 'all Accused harassed her mentally and
threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'.
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations
have been made against either of the Appellants
herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
ascertain the role played by each Accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are
therefore general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned,
since he has not appealed against the order of
High Court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as
the Appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus, do
not warrant prosecution."
On that basis it is submitted that in case at hand also there are no
specific and distinct allegations raised against the family members.
Besides general allegations, there is nothing to attribute their role.
8. In the light of said observations we have re-examined the
police report, as well as the statements recorded by the police during
the course of investigation. By virtue of interim order the police
have continued the investigation, but, charge sheet has not been
filed. The learned A.P.P. has attracted our attention to the statement
of parents and uncle of the informant to impress that on 25.08.2021,
there was a specific monetary demand from the end of parents-in-
law of the informant.
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
9. Perusal of the entire police report, as well as the
statements of nearer relatives, it reveals that time and again the
informant lady has merely stated that at the instance of relatives, her
husband used to raise monetary demand and harass her. She has
quoted several instances blaming her husband about cruel treatment
in the form of monetary demand and physical assault. Except for
last instance dated 25.08.2021, we could not see any specific
allegation against the present applicants. Moreover, it is not in
dispute that within couple of days from the marriage, both of them
shifted to Nagpur and therefore, it is difficult to accept the
contention that all applicants were harassing the lady.
10. So far as applicant nos. 1 and 2, who are parents-in-law
of the informant, she has quoted specific instance dated 25.08.2021
about harassment at the instance of monetary demand. The learned
Counsel for applicants would submit that no such instance had
occurred, but, according to him, in order to fill up the gap the
informant has stated imaginary occurrence dated 25.08.2021. He
would submit that already divorce petition was pending, and thus, it
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
is impossible for applicants to call the informant for re-union.
11. True, divorce petition was pending, however, it being a
matrimonial affair always the parties are tend for re-union. We have
gone through the statement of parents and uncle of the informant
lady. They have stated that on 25.08.2021, they have been called
for settlement and when they went, there were was a specific
monetary demand at the hands of parents-in-law of the informant.
The specific incident dated 25.08.2021 is stated not only by the
informant, but, her parents and uncle, therefore, at this preliminary
stage, we cannot say that it is imaginary incident, since it is a matter
of trial to be decided on merits. However, as regards to other
applicants, we could not see any material against them, besides
vague and general allegations. As observed above in the report case
of Kahkashan Kausar [supra], on the basis of vague and general
allegations, entire family members cannot be dragged in criminal
prosecution. In view of that, we are of the considered view that a
case for quashing of the first information report is made out by
applicant nos. 3 to 5 only, who are brother-in-law, sister-in-law and
Rgd.
Judgment apl1193.22
husband of sister-in-law, hence, following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Application is partly allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The first information report bearing Crime No.254/2022
registered with Shirpur Police Station, District Yavatmal
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed
and set aside to the extent of applicant nos. [3] Prashant
Sadashiv Gowardipe, [4] Suvarna Umesh Bonde and
[5]Umesh Maroti Bonde only.
(iii) The prosecution is permitted to file charge sheet against
rest of the accused.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/01/2024 11:16:38
