Bombay High Court
Pankaj S/O. Poshatti Ghantalwad And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 10 September, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:23456-DB
{1}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1166 OF 2020
1. Pankaj s/o. Poshatti Ghantalwad (brother in law)
Age 22 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Kolgalli, Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
2. Poshatti s/o. Gangaram Ghantalwad (father in law)
Age 57 yearse, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Kolgalli, Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
3. Panchfula @ Phulabai
w/o. Poshatti Ghantalwad, (Mother in law)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Bhokar Police Station,
Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
2. Shivaji w/o. Pawan Ghantalwad
Age 26 Years, Occ. Private service
R/o. Kolgalli, Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.
At present Jai Bhawani Nagar, N-4,
Aurangabad.
.. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. A.D. Raut, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. V.K. Koktecha, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr. N.N. Bhagwat, Advocate for respondent No.2 ( appointed).
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
{2}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J]:-
1. The applicants have approached this court under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. thereby praying to quash and set aside the charge sheet in
Sessions Case No. 5 of 2020 pending before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhokar, District Nanded for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(4) of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. On 17.12.2018, respondent No.2 filed report with police
station Bhokar, District Nanded, alleging that on 21.7.2016, she got
married with Pavan Poshatti Ghantalwad at Alandi. It was a love
marriage. Her husband was pursuing his education in medical faculty
(MBBS). After marriage, she resided with her husband at Aurangabad in
a rented premises. After residing for six months, her husband gave a
reasoning of inconvenience to attend college from his place of residence
and shifted to college campus with assurance that he will make it
convenient visit her every week. While she was residing alone at
Aurangabad, her in-laws used to visit frequently and instigate her
husband against her. Mother in law used to tease her and abuse her
saying that she has fraudulently married with their son. Even they raised
a demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs from her parents and in pursuance to such
demand, she was beaten and abused.
3. It is further alleged that husband used to say that he has
married her only because she is good looking but he wish to marry with a
girl from his community. On 25.11.2019, her husband abused her and
raised demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs from her parents, else, threatened of
{3}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
serious consequences. They declared that he has fixed the second
marriage which is scheduled on 17.12.2019 at village Umri. She told the
aforesaid incident to her parents. They rushed to matrimonial home at
Bhokar and asked in-laws as to why her husband is performing second
marriage. Her mother in law, father in law, and brother in law were at
home, whereas, her husband had been to Umri. When she asked as to
why her husband is performing second marriage, her in-laws took her in
a room on first floor and abused her. The brother in law and father in
law caught hold of her hands and mother in law poured kerosene on her
person. Her brother in law set her ablaze. She ran out of the room and
somehow succeeded to extinguish the fire. She was then shifted to civil
hospital at Bhokar. Accordingly, she alleges that accused persons are
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 307, 323, 504 and
506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(4) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The investigation progressed in pursuance of aforesaid report. Finally,
charge sheet has been filed on 21.12.2019.
4. It appears that presently Sessions case is pending. Mr. A.D.
Raut, learned advocate appearing for the applicants vehemently submits
that contents of the FIR are nothing but a concocted story. Respondent
No.2 had love marriage with her husband. She was residing separately
from in-laws at Ahmednagar and Aurangabad. The applicants before this
court were residing separately from in-laws at Bhokar Dist. Nanded.
Referring to the statements of the witnesses in the charge sheet, namely,
Ramdas Ganpat Pacharwar, Parvati Datta Husekar and Anita Husekar, he
would submit that the incident as narrated in the FIR never occurred.
Informant had simply made an attempt to enter into the house and
finding that main gate is locked, returned back to her maternal home.
{4}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
The entire narration regarding further episode of pouring kerosene or
setting her ablaze is absolutely false. Some differences arose between the
informant and her husband. Therefore, with ill-intention the complaint
has been filed thereby implicating all family members of the husband.
He would submit that so far as allegations regarding demand of dowry
are vague and omnibus. No offence can be made out against the
applicants.
5. Per contra, Mr. V.K. Kotecha, learned APP and Mr. M.N.
Bhagwat, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposes
the prayer in the application. They would submit that the contents of the
FIR stipulates specific allegations as regards to ill-treatment meted to
respondent No.2 at the hands of in-laws. The incident dated 16.12.2018
has been elaborately described in the FIR. The evidence in the charge
sheet supports the allegations in the FIR. They would, therefore, urge
that the application deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for respective parties. We have minutely perused the contents
of the FIR and material in charge sheet. We find that there are specific
allegations in the FIR against applicants as well as accused Pawan i.e.
husband of respondent No.2. Apparently, it was love marriage of
respondent No.2 with her husband and she resided with him at
Ahmednagar, Aurangabad at different places. The allegations regarding
demand of money and ill-treatment appears to be vague in nature.
However, so far as incident dated 16.12.2018, the respondent No.2 has
specifically reported about individual role of each of the applicants.
There are specific allegations against all 3 applicants before us, referring
{5}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
to their individual overt acts. The contents of the charge sheet shows
that on 17.12.2018, M.L.C. No. 94 of 2016 was registered and
respondent No.2 was referred for medical examination, which record that
she has suffered burn injuries. Her clothes are also seized as per
Panchanama under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of
investigation. Kerosene residues have been detected on clothes. The
report of forensic laboratory is made part of the charge sheet.
7. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants that a
concocted and false story has been put forth in the FIR cannot be
appreciated at this stage in present proceeding. When prima-facie there
are allegations making out a cognizable offence and contents of charge
sheet makes out a triable case, it is not expected to exercise inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Although this court possesses wide
powers to quash the criminal proceeding, taking into consideration the
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State
of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others" reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604
such powers are to be exercised sparingly only when continuation of
criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law.
Truthfulness or falsity of the allegations in the FIR cannot be gone into in
the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8. In the present case, the Sessions Court has already framed
charge against the accused persons and trial is in progress. In this
background, it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down by the
Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others" reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein, the Supreme
Court observed in para. No. 9.2 that exercise of power under Section 482
{6}
crapl 1166.20 Final.odt
is an exception and not the Rule. The appreciation of evidence is not
permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings. In light of
observations and fact that trial is already in progress, we do not find it
appropriate to exercise extraordinary powers.
9. In that view of the matter, we don't not find any merit in the
application. The application stands rejected.
10. Mr. N.N. Bhagwat, learned advocate is appointed by this
Court to represent respondent No.2, his remuneration is quantified at Rs.
7000/- to be paid through Maharashtra Legal Services Authority, Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
