Bombay High Court
Vatsala W/O Barku Patil(Nikam) And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 September, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:37184-DB
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5543 OF 2021
Dr. Shilpa W/o. Rajendra Boldhane,
Age : 42 years, Occu.:Doctor,
Flat No. B/401, August Home
Society, Ulkanagari, Aurangabad. .....Petitioner
(Orig. Accused)
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Chavani Police Station, Malegaon,
Taluka-Malegaon, District-Nashik.
(Copy to be served on P.P.
High Court Bombay).
2. Dr. Velantina W/o. Kiran Patil (Nikam), (Orig. Complt.)
Age : 38 years, Occ.:Doctor (Dentist),
R/o. Sukhakarata Hospital, In front of
Kakaji Masale, Malegaon, Taluka-Malegaon,
District-Nashik. .....Respondents
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta i/b Mahesh H. Chandanshiv
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
None present for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5545 OF 2021
1. Vatsala W/o. Barku Patil (Nikam),
Age : 63 years, Occu.:Pensioner,
R/o. Parijat Housing Society,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
2. Jayashree W/o. Yashwant Suryawanshi,
Age : 44 years, Occu.:Household,
R/o. Arjun Sagar Road, Kathare Digger,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 :::
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
3. Yashwant S/o. Nagu Suryawanshi,
Age : 50 years, Occu.:Teacher,
R/o. Arjun Sagar Road, Kathare Digger,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
4. Hemant S/o. Barku Patil (Nikam),
Age : 38 years, Occu.:Engineer,
R/o. Maharshi Row House-3, Gamne Mala,
Makhamalabad Nashik,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik. .....Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Chavani Police Station, Malegaon,Barku Patil
Taluka-Malegaon, District-Nashik.
(Through its Public Prosecutor
Bombay High Court, Mumbai).
2. Dr. Velantina W/o. Kiran Patil (Nikam), (Orig. Complt.)
Age : 38 years, Occ.:Doctor (Dentist),
R/o. Sukhakarata Hospital, In front of
Kakaji Masale, Taluka-Malegaon,
District-Nashik. .....Respondents
Mr. Mahesh Chandanshiv (Through V.C.) for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
None present for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th SEPTEMBER 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th SEPTEMBER 2024.
JUDGMENT:
- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1) The Petitioners in both the Petitions seek quashing of criminal
proceedings bearing RCC No.308 of 2023 pending on the file of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon, Nashik culminating from C.R.No.269
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
of 2021 registered with Chhavani Police Station, Malegaon for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 326, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2) Both the Petitions were admitted by Order dated 30 th June
2023 passed by this Court.
3) The facts in brief are as follows:
3.1) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5543 of 2021 is stated to be a
woman friend of the Respondent No.2's husband namely, Kiran Patil. The
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2021 are the mother-in-law of the
Respondent No.2 and other relatives of Kiran Patil. It is the allegation of the
Respondent No.2 that, she married Dr. Kiran Patil on 22 nd February 2007 at
Malegaon. There are two issues of the said marriage, namely, daughter
Khyati aged about 12 years and son namely, Vihan aged about 10 years.
3.2) It is alleged that, the husband of the Respondent No.2 and his
relatives treated the Respondent No.2 with cruelty. Respondent No.2's
father had given an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and 50 tolas of gold as
dowry. After the marriage, she realised that, her husband had extra-marital
relations with Dr. Shilpa, the Petitioner in the former Petition. He used to
tell her that, he did not want to marry her but was compelled to do so since
she did not have a brother and her parents property would devolve upon
her. He used to abuse her and beat her on trivial matters. He used to
constantly demand divorce from her.
3.3) It is alleged that, whenever she informed her husband's
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
relatives regarding the cruelty, they also advised her to divorce him. It is
also alleged that, she had caught her husband chatting on the phone with
the said Dr. Shilpa and exchanging love talks with each other. She saw some
insurance papers which made her believe that, her husband intended to
cause her harm and claim insurance money. She was very frightened of him.
The abuses continued and she was even required to be hospitalised on one
occasion. Due to this ill-treatment at the hands of her husband, Dr. Shilpa
and his other relatives, she filed the impugned FIR.
4) Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel appears for the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5543 of 2021 and Mr. Mahesh Chandanshiv
learned counsel appears for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of
2021. Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP represents the State. None appeared
for the Respondent No.2 despite service being complete.
5) In so far as Dr. Shilpa is concerned, she is admittedly stated to
be a woman friend of Kiran Patil, i.e, Respondent No.2's husband. As is
settled law by the Supreme Court, in the matter of Sunita Jha v. State of
Jharkhand1 following its decision, in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of
Police & Anr.2, a woman friend of the husband does not fall in the category
of the 'relative of the husband of a woman' as contemplated in Section 498-
A of the IPC. It is clear and unambiguous that only the husband or his
relative can be proceeded against under the said provision for subjecting
the wife to cruelty, which is specifically defined in the Explanation to
1 (2010) 10 SCC 190
2 (2009) 6 SCC 757
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
Section 498-A of the IPC. In view of this settled position of law, we have no
hesitation in holding that no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR
against Dr. Shilpa.
6) In so far as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2021 are
concerned, undoubtedly they are relatives of Respondent No.2's husband
Kiran Patil. However, a plain but careful reading of the FIR does not
demonstrate any act attributable to the Petitioners that constitute the
offences as alleged. The allegations in the FIR against the relatives of Kiran
Patil are omnibus, general and vague. The allegations are clearly attributed
only to Respondent No.2's husband Kiran Patil.
7) The Supreme court in its decision in the matter of Mamidi Anil
Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P.3 held as under:
"14......A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of
witnesses' and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations
against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in
nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not
prima-facie make out a case against the Appellants. The
material on record neither discloses any particulars of the
offenses alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations
assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the
offenses.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial
disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 1 SCR 558; (2022) 6
SCC 599], this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the
3 (2024) INSC 101
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in-
laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking
any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to
quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that
such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse
of the process of law."
8) The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Other4 held as under:
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash Complaints and criminal proceedings have been
stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To
mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988
SCC (Cri.) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995)6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri.)
1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. [(1996)5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1045],
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996)8 SCC 164 :
1996 SCC (Cri.) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
[(1999)3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)3
SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri.) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000)4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri.)
786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001)8 SCC 645 : 2002
SCC (Cri.) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005)1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri.)
4 (2006) 6 SCC 736
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A Complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in the Complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima-facie constitute any offense or make out the case
alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the
Complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry, nor a meticulous analysis of the material or an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the Complaint, is warranted while examining
prayer for quashing of a Complaint.
(ii) A Complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with
malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause
harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used
to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power
should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) .......
(v)........."
9) After examining the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet,
we have no hesitation in holding that neither of the documents discloses
commission of any cognizable offence. In view of the facts of the case and
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
the settled position of law, we are inclined to quash the FIR and charge-
sheet qua the Petitioners in both the Petitions. We hasten to add that
allegations made against the husband of the Respondent No.2 namely, Kiran
Patil disclose commission of the offences as alleged and the criminal
proceedings against Kiran Patil are permitted to continue.
10) Criminal proceedings bearing RCC No.308 of 2023 pending on
the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon, Nashik arising
out of charge sheet no.14 of 2023 dated 6 th April 2023 culminating from
C.R.No.269 of 2021 registered with Chhavani Police Station, Malegaon are
quashed and set aside qua the Petitioners in present proceedings.
11) Rule is made accordingly made absolute.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.09.19
18:54:52
+0530
