Bombay High Court
Rahul S/O Bharat Wankhade And 4 Others vs State Of Mah.Thr. Pso Ps Khamgaon (City) ... on 14 October, 2024
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: Vinay Joshi
2024:BHC-NAG:11619-DB
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1142/2021
1. Shri Rahul s/o. Bharat Wankhade,
Aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Daily Wager,
2. Smt. Chandrakanta w/o Bharat Wankhade,
Aged about 57 yrs., Occ. Household,
3. Sanjay s/o. Bharat Wankhade,
Aged about 34 yrs., Occ. Service,
4. Smt. Nikita w/o Sanjay Wankhade,
aged about 28 yrs., Occ. Household,
Nos.1 to 4 all R/o. Shikshak Colony, in
front of father's Bungalow, Khamgaon,
Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana.
5. Smt. Sapna w/o. Nitin Virghat,
aged about 30 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Kurkhed, Tah. Shegaon,
Dist. Buldana.
... APPLICANTS.
(Org. accused)
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Khamgaon (City),
Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana.
2. Smt. Rani w/o. Rahul Wankhade,
Aged about 24 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Ganesh s/o. Shyamrao Patode,
Village Akoli, at Post Atali, Tah. Khamgaon,
Dist. Buldana-444303. (Org. Complainant)
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
2
... NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. P.S. Sadavarte, with K.P. Sadavarte, Advocates for applicants.
Mr. A. Ghogare, APP for non-applicant No.1/Stae.
Ms. Falguni Badani, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI JJ.
DATE : 14.10.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.) :
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. By this application, the applicants who are husband and his
relatives are seeking to quash prosecution bearing RCC No. 847/2021
arising out of Crime No. 636/2021 registered with Police Station
Khamngaon City, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
4. At the instance of report dated 15.07.2021 lodged by
informant lady, crime has been registered. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been lodged. The informant got
married with applicant No.1 in the year 2015 and resumed to cohabit
with her husband and in-laws. The informant has also begotten child
from wedlock. Barring initial few days, the informant alleges that she
has been harassed by her husband by demanding sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- for arranging a job. The rest of the applicants who are
mother-in-law, brother-in-law, wife of brother-in-law, sister-in-law
also joined the husband in harassing informant mentally as well as
physically. The informant stated that on 24.04.2021, her husband
Rahul reiterated the demand. On said count, informant was physically
assaulted. The rest of the applicants were present at that time and all
of them drove her out of the house and therefore, the report.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
allegations levelled against the applicants are vague and general. It is
submitted that in earlier complaint dated 25.04.2021, there are no
specific allegations and more particularly, there was no role of
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
applicant No.5 Sapna. We have been taken through the contents of
application filed by the informant under the provisions of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act ("DV Act"), wherein there is
no specific role of the relatives of husband.
6. The learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing for
non-applicant No.2 would submit that the lady has specifically stated
that there was harassment to meet unlawful monetary demand. The
informant stated that all of them physically and mentally harassed her
and drove her out of the house. With the assistance by both sides, we
have examined the entire material. Apparently, neither in FIR or in
earlier report dated 25.04.2021 or in the document any preceding
instance has been collected. The entire case of the informant is about
unlawful demand, mental and physical harassment by the husband.
As regards to the relatives of husband are concerned, there are
omnibus allegations that all of them physically and mentally harassed
her. Neither the day, occasion or particular instance has been stated
apart from specific act of rest of the relatives. Moreover, applicant
No.5 Sapna is residing separately since prior to the marriage of
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
informant.
7. In the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kahkashan
Kausar alias Sonam Vs. State of Bhiar and other, (2022) 6 SCC 599, it
is ruled that tendency of involving maximum family members of
husband in matrimonial dispute is at rise. It is clarified that on the
basis of vague and general allegations, the relatives of husband cannot
be put on trial. Taking over all view of the matter, it is apparent that
the main allegations are against the husband. As regards to the
relatives of husband are concerned, besides vague and general
allegations, nothing emerges, hence continuation of prosecution
against them amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
8. In view of above, application is partly allowed. We here by
quash and set aside prosecution bearing RCC No. 847/2021 arising out
of Crime No. 636/2021 registered with Police Station Khamngaon
City, Dist. Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,
323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as regards to
the relatives of husband i.e. applicant Nos. 2 to 5. The prosecution
shall continue against the husband i.e. applicant No.1 Rahul s/o.
Judgment 27apl 1142.21
Bharat Wankhade.
9. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
10. Fees for appointed counsel for non-applicant No.2 be paid
as per Rule.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/10/2024 11:09:06
