Bombay High Court
Eknath Kashinath Ingle And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 12 September, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:23459-DB
{1}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 193 OF 2023
1. Eknath S/o. Kashinath Ingle,
Age 59 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Sudhakar Nagar, Satara Parisar
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
(father in law of respondent No.2)
2. Rajani w/o. Eknath Ingle
age 55 yeares, Occ. Household,
R/o. Sudhakar Nagar, Satara Parisar
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
(Mother in law of respondent No.2)
3. Chetan S/o. Eknath Ingle,
Age 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sudhakar Nagar, Satara Parisar
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
(Brother in law of respondent No.2)
.. APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Satara Police Station,
Satara, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Dipali Shrikant Ingle
Age 31 years,
R/o. C/o. Vishwanath Sonu Sangalkar,
R/o. Ranjangaon Shenpunji,
Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
.. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. D.D. Chaudhari, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.C. Chavan, Advocate for respondent No.2
{2}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.]. :-
1. The applicants have approached this court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set
aside the charge sheet bearing No. 72 of 2020 in Crime No. 53 of 2020
registered with Police Station, Satara, District Aurangabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2 lodged FIR dated 28.2.2020 alleging that
she has been married on 25.6.2019 with accused Shrikant Eknath Ingale
as per the Hindu rites and customs. The marriage expenses were born
by her father. After marriage, she resided at her matrimonial home
alongwith in-laws. Initially, she was treated well for two months.
Lateron, her mother in law, brother in law, and family members were
teasing her under he pretext that she has no skills of cooking. The
marriage was not performed by her father as per their standard etc. It is
further alleged that her father in law used unparliamentary language
against her parents and gave threats to perform second marriage of her
husband. A demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was raised from her father to secure
employment of husband. On 1st November, 2019, she went to her
maternal home and informed her parents and brother about the ill-
treatment. Her family members attempted conciliation. However, there
was persistent demand for Rs. 5 Lakhs and ill-treatment by in laws for
that purpose. In pursuance of the aforesaid information, Crime No. 53 of
2020 came to be registered with Police Station, Satara, District
{3}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
Aurangabad against in all 4 accused persons. On completion of
investigation charge sheet has been filed against them.
3. Applicant Nos. 2 to 4, i.e. father in law, mother in law,
brother in law of respondent No.2 are before this court. Mr. D.D.
Chaudhari, learned advocate for the applicants submits that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in aforesaid crime. Respondent
No.2 was not interested to live with her husband. She left the
matrimonial home on her own accord. Earlier, she had filed complaint in
Crime No. 9 of 2020 against her husband for the offence punishable
under Sections 324, 323 of IPC. Upon trial, her husband has been
acquitted vide judgment and order dated 21.9.2022. The Criminal Misc.
Case No. 5 of 2021 filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
by respondent No.2 is also disposed as withdrawn vide order dated
21.9.2022. The allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are vague and
omnibus and do not constitute any offences as charged. He would,
therefore, urge that the charge sheet and consequential proceeding
pending against the applicants may be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, Mr. A.M. Phule, learned APP and Mr. R.C.
Chavan, learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently oppose the
prayer in the application contending that the contents of the charge sheet
clearly stipulate that respondent No.2 was ill-treated and harassed by her
in-laws in pursuance of demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The contents of the FIR
are duly supported by the statement of witnesses in the charge sheet. As
such, there is triable case against the applicants. Consequently, they urge
to reject the application.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
{4}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
advocates for the respective parties. We have perused the contents of the
charge sheet and the statement of witnesses annexed alongwith the
charge sheet. The FIR is lodged on 28.2.2020 i.e. within six months of
marriage. The first part of the FIR stipulates that the respondent No.2
resided with her in-laws in shared house at Surana Nagar, Satara Parisar,
where she was treated well for a period of two months. She alleges that
thereafter she was teased on various counts and lastly states that demand
of Rs. 5 Lakhs was raised to secure employment for her husband and ill-
treatment continued in pursuance of said demand. She states that on 1 st
November, 2019, she left the matrimonial home and while residing with
her parents, disclosed about the ill-treatment at the hands of in-laws and
thereafter, when she attempted to return to matrimonial home, she was
driven out of the house. The minute scrutiny of aforesaid stipulation,
depict that no particulars of ill-treatment or overt act as against
applicants have been specified in the FIR. The contents of FIR so far as it
relates to applicants are omnibus and vague. Even nature of ill-treatment
as alleged, is unspecific. Apparently, the respondent No.2 resided at her
matrimonial house hardly for a period of 4 months and as per her own
statement, she was treated well for the initial period of 2-3 months. In
this background, it would be necessary to refer to the language employed
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus :-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her
to cruelty.--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.-- For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means--(a)any wilful conduct which is of such
a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
{5}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand."
6. Even if the allegations made in FIR are taken as it is, there
is nothing to demonstrate that respondent No.2 was harassed or ill-
treated in pursuance of demand of dowry or ill-treatment of such a
nature that would drive her to commit suicide. Perusal of the statement
of witnesses which are made part of charge sheet would also demonstrate
that stereo-type and omnibus allegations are employed against the in-
laws without specifications and particulars of so called ill-treatment. The
ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A are not discernible
from the contents of the statements of witnesses, so far as the applicants
are concerned.
7. It appears that respondent No.2 had lodged FIR in Crime No.
9 of 2020 dated 14.1.2020 against her husband and upon trial, he has
been acquitted. The proceeding under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 was instituted by respondent No.2 against husband
and present applicants i.e. family members of her husband has also been
withdrawn.
8. Taking into consideration the overall conduct of respondent
No.2, there is reason to believe that the respondent No.2 has attempted
to implicate all the family members of her husband with intention to
pressurize them. At this stage, reference can be given to the observations
made by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Preeti Gupta Vs.
{6}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
State of Jharkhand, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 wherein the apex court
observed in para. 30, 32 and 34 as under :-
"30. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in
our country. All the courts in our country including this
Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a
large number of people of the society.
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of
the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine
cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious
concern.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead
to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the
complainant, accused and his close relations."
12. In yet another case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2022)6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court after taking stock of
various decisions, rendered by the supreme Court in the subject matter,
observed in para. 17 as under.
" The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that
this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the
misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
{7}
crapln 193.23 R.odt
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.
9. Keeping in mind aforesaid observations of the Supreme
court, if the contents of the FIR and charge sheet in present case are
considered, we find that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the FIR and consequential
proceeding so far as the applicants. Hence, we proceed to allow the
application and pass the following order :-
ORDER
[I] Criminal application is allowed;
[ii] Charge sheet No. 72 of 2020 in Crime No.53 of 2020
registered with police station, Satara, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A. 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and
consequential criminal proceeding is hereby quashed and set aside to the
extent of applicants herein.
[iii] The application stands disposed of.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
