Bombay High Court
Suhas Ashok Kharat vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:11408-DB
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 885/2024
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 622/2024
*************
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 885/2024
Suhas Ashok Kharat,
Aged about 33 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o. G-5 Riddhi Siddhi Park Society,
Pancharatna Dwar, Pakhadi, Kharegaon
Kalwa, Thane-400605, Tq. & Dist. Thane
(Husband of non-applicant No.2)
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer, Shivaji
Nagar, Buldhan.
2. Sau. Manisha Suhas Kharat,
Age 29 yrs., R/o. Gajanan Colony,
Ghatpuri, Shiavaji Nagar,
Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana
(wife of applicant)
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. U. Phasate, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2
----------------------------------
WITH
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
2
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 622/2024
1. Sau. Mangal Pawan Chandankar (Sister-in-law)
Aged 43 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
2. Pawan D. Chandankar (Husband of applicant No.1)
Age 45 yrs., Occ. Lecturer (Freelancer),
Both R/o. 203, Sudhakar near Jarimari Mandir Pakhadi
Kalwa, Thane.
3. Ashok S. Kharat (Father-in-law),
Age 71 yrs., Occ. Retired,
4. Gangavati Ashok Kharat (Mother-in-law)
Age 64 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
Both R/o. G-5, Riddhi Siddhi Park Soc.
Pakhadi Kharegaon Kalwa Thane.
5. Santosh Ashok Kharat (Brother-in-law)
Age 45 yrs., Occ. Service,
6. Trupti Santosh Kharat (wife of applicant No.5)
Age 44 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
Applicant Nos. 3 to 6 R/o. B-3/402, Rajlaxmi Park,
near Vitthal Mandir Parsik Nagar, Thane.
7. Amol A. Bhosale (Husband of applicant No.8)
Age 44 yrs., Occ. Service,
8. Manisha Amol bhosale (sister-in-law)
Age 41 yrs., Occ. Housewife,
Both R/o. 402, B wing, Matruchaya Heritage,
near Karmel Convent School, Section 11,
Kalamboli Navi Mumbai.
... APPLICANTS
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
3
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Shivaji Nagar, Buldhana.
2. Sau. Manisha Suhas Kharat,
Age 29 yrs., R/o. Gajanan Colony,
Ghatpuri, Shivaji Nagar,
Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for applicants.
Mrs. N. Tripati, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 09.10.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Both applications are similarly for seeking to quash charge-sheet
(RCC No.751/2024) arising out of Crime No. 35/2024 registered with
Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Buldhan for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
4. The applicants of Criminal Application (APL) No. 622/2024
are nearer relatives of husband whilst applicant of Criminal Application
(APL) No. 885/2024 is husband of informant. By these applications, they
seek to quash the criminal prosecution on the ground that the contents of
Police Report and the material collected during the course of investigation
does not make out priam facie case to constitute the offence. It is argued
that the entire family has been roped in the matrimonial dispute which is
nothing but sheer harassment. It is submitted that most of the relatives are
residing elsewhere, however they have been falsely implicated.
5. Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing
for informant resisted the applications by contending that the informant
lady has stated about the involvement of all applicants. They took us
through the portion of initial written complaint dated 21.08.2023 to
contend that the informant lady alleges that at the instances of all relatives,
husband used to beat and harass her. Moreover, our attention has been
invited to the statement that all applicants used to raise monetary demand.
On 25.07.2023, applicant Nos. 7 and 8 with husband of informant
removed all ornaments from the informant.
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
6. With the assistance of both sides, we have gone through entire
material. After matrimonial discord, the informant has initially filed written
complaint with the Police on 21.08.2023 which has triggered into lodging
of report. The couple got married on 27.11.2020, on which the informant
started to cohabit with her husband and in-laws. The informant herself
stated that the applicants in Criminal Application (APL) No. 622/2024 who
are sister-in-laws and their husbands are residing elsewhere. They are in
visiting terms at informant's house. The entire complaint discloses that the
informant has made general allegation against all the relatives stating that
they have instigated the husband who in turn, physically harassed her. It is
stated that the applicants used to humiliate her, however not a single
instance has been quoted. As regards to alleged incident dated 25.07.2023
is concerned, the husband allegedly removed her ornaments, in which
applicant Nos. 7 and 8 are stated to have joined. Admittedly, they are
residing separate and even if accepted the said isolated act as it stand, it fails
short to make an offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of
the Indian Penal Code. We have also gone through the statement of
informant recorded by the Police on 10.01.2024 which is in consonance
with the initial complaint.
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
7. The learned counsel appearing for applicants relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam
Vs. State of Bhiar and other, (2022) 6 SCC 599, Seenivasan Vs. State by
Inspector of Police and others, (2019) 8 SCC 642, Abhishek Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, Mahalakshmi and others Vs.
State of Karnataka and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1622, Priyanka
Mishra and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 978 and Rashmi Chopra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
(2019) 15 SCC 357 to contend that on the basis of vague and general
allegations, the relatives of husband cannot be dragged into litigation. We
have considered the above decisions, wherein the Supreme Court has
reiterated that the tendency of involving maximum family members of
husband in matrimonial dispute is at rise. The Court shall not allow to
continue the prosecution against the relatives on the basis of omnibus vague
and general allegations.
8. In the light of above position, we have re-examined the entire
material. It reveals that the allegations raised about the actual harassment,
demand of money and beating are particularly against the husband. The
role of rest of the relatives are about instigating the husband. The informant
Judgment 952 apl 885.24+apl622.24
has not stated any specific instance, occasion, date or something more to
construe that they have participated in the act of harassment. Mere vague
reference of the relatives would fall short to make out a triable case.
9. In view of above, continuation of prosecution against the
relatives of husband in Criminal Application (APL) No. 622/2024 would be
abuse of the process of the Court. As regards to the husband who is
applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 885/2024 is concerned, there
is prima facie case, hence his application carries no merits.
10. In view of above, Criminal Application (APL) No. 885/2024
stands dismissed. Criminal Application (APL) No. 622/2024 is allowed.
We hereby quash and set aside charge-sheet (RCC No.751/2024) arising
out of Crime No. 35/2024 registered with Police Station Shivaji Nagar,
Buldhan for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of relatives of
husband i.e. the applicants of Criminal Application (APL) No. 622/2024
11. Applications stand disposed of in above terms.
12. Fees be paid to the appointed counsel as per Rule.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/10/2024 16:29:50
