Bombay High Court
Radhakisan Lalsing Jadhav And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 September, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:23455-DB
{1}
crapln 2143.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2143 OF 2023
1. Rajesh Radhakisan Jadhav
Age 33 years, Occ. Service .. Husband.
2. Radhakisan Lalsing Jadhav,
Age 63 years, Occ. Retired. ..Father in law
3. Parwatibai Radhakisan jadhav
Age 55 years, Occ. Household, ..Mother in law
All r/o. Naiknagar, Beed-by-pass,
Aurangabad.
4. Seema Sainath Pawar,
Age 35 years, Occ. Household .. Sister in law
R/o. Indewadi, Jalna,
Ta. Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
5. Mukesh Radhakisan Jadhav
Age 39 years, Occ. Private Service. .. Brother in law.
6. Anita w/o. Mukesh Jadhav. Wife of applicant No.5
Age 34 years, Occ. Houssehold,
Both r/o Naiknagar, Beed-by-pass
Aurangabad now residing at USA.
7. Sheshrao s/o. Kadu Rathod,
Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.
r/o .Shambhunagar, Sootgirni,
Aurangabad.
.. APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
through Police Inspector,
Chikhalthana Police Station, Aurangabad,
Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.
{2}
crapln 2143.23.odt
2. Yogita w/o. Rajesh Jadhav,
Age 22 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Dongaon, Tekadi Tanda,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
.. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. G.V. Ghuge, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. N.R. Dayama, APP for respondent State.
Mr. S.R. Bhagal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 19th 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 FIR bearing crime No. 166 of 2022 registered with Police
Station, Chikhalthana, Dist. Aurangabad as well as criminal proceeding
in RCC No. 531 of 2023 pending before JMFC, Aurangabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Mr. G.S. Ghuge, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants submits that the applicant has already been withdrawn so far
as applicant No.1 is concerned as such, he would restrict the submissions
in respect of applicant Nos. 2 to 7.
3. Respondent No.2 herein, lodged report dated 4.5.2022
alleging that on 12th May, 2019, she got married with applicant No.1 as
per the Hindu rights and customs. After marriage she resided alongwith
{3}
crapln 2143.23.odt
her in-laws. She was treated well by in-laws for a month. However,
thereafter, they started teasing her for the reason that she is not well
educated. The marriage was not performed as per the status. Gift
articles were not as per their standard. She is not a suitable match for
applicant No.1. They demanded an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs for
purchasing house at Mumbai. She was assaulted doubting the character.
The sister in law, brother in law, co-sister etc. were instigating applicant
No.1 to insist for demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs from parents of respondent
No.2. After she conceived pregnancy, she had been to her maternal
house. She delivered a male child. However, the ill-treatment continued.
Lastly, she was sent to her maternal home. Hence, she filed complaint
against the in-laws.
4. Mr. G.V. Ghuge, learned advocate appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are falsely implicated in aforesaid
crime. There was dispute between the applicant No.1 and esp No.2. The
allegations in the FIR do not make out any offence under Section 498-A.
He would submit that the falsity in the allegations is writ large. The
applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are residing in USA. Applicant No.4 resides at
Jalna. Applicant No.7 is not family member of applicant Nos. 1 to 3. He
would further submit that applicant No.1 filed petition under Section
13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on the ground of
cruelty against respondent No.2 on 8.7.2021. The present FIR is filed
after service of notice of said petition. He would therefore urge that the
FIR and consequential proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. N.R. Dayma, learned APP and Mr. S.R. Bagal
learned advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer in
the application contending that the allegations in the FIR coupled with
{4}
crapln 2143.23.odt
the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation are sufficient to
make the charged offences. AS such, there is triable case against the
applicants.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for respective parties. We have perused the statement of
witnesses which are part of the charge sheet. A minute reading of the
FIR shows that the allegations are vague and omnibus. There are no
specific stipulations against applicant Nos. 2 to 7. General allegations are
made that all the applicants have teased the respondent No.2 on various
counts and also raised doubt about her character. Lastly, allegation is
made that the demand was raised to bring amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs for
purchase of house at Mumbai. No date, period or any particulars of
cruelty is mentioned. No overt acts against applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are
attributed. Statement of witnesses cited in charge sheet are also
omnibus, without particulars of so called demand or cruelty.
7. It is trite that to make out an offence under Section 498-A,
ill-treatment in pursuance of demand of dowry or ill-treatment of such a
nature that will drive the woman to suicide are absent in present case.
The contents of FIR and charge sheet are bereft of making out case as
against the applicants.
8. At this stage, reference can be given to the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 wherein the apex court
observed in para. 30, 32 and 34 as under :-
" It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our counrty. All the
courts in our country including this Court are flooded with
{5}
crapln 2143.23.odt
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."
9. 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
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.
10. Similarly, in the case of Sushilkumar Sharma vs. Union of
India and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281, the Supreme Court
observed in para. 19 as under :-
{6}
crapln 2143.23.odt
"19. The object of the provision is prevention of the
dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the
petitioner many instances have come to light where the
complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive.
In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe
out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes
adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question,
therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent
abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the
provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence
to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash
harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the
legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous
complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till
then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the
existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of
dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal
terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used
a shield and not assassins' weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too
often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available
when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of
investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the
allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the
matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot
be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to
arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There
is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously
argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the
courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are
guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too
wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory
presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be
noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is
that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their
effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on
account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is
equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is
available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence.
While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to
circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
{7}
crapln 2143.23.odt
11. When we apply the aforesaid principles of law in the facts of
the present case, we notice that apart from omnibus allegations in the
FIR and charge sheet there is nothing to justify the prosecution of
applicant Nos. 2 to 7. As rightly pointed by Mr. Ghuge, learned advocate
for the applicant, applicant Nos.5 and 6 are residents of USA. The
statement of witness, namely, Anil Kaduba Rathod clearly depicts that
after attending the marriage of applicant No.1 with respondent No.2,
they left for USA within a period of one month. Thereafter, they did not
return back to India. Applicant No.4 is the married sister in law of
applicant No.1, she resides at Jalna. No specific role is attributed against
applicant No.7.
12. In the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to exercise
our inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
[i] Criminal application is partly allowed;
[ii] FIR in Crime No. 166 of 2022 registered with police station,
Chikhalthana, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A. 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and consequential criminal
proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 531 of 2023 pending before learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, is hereby quashed and set
aside to the extent of applicant Nos. 2 to 7 herein.
[iii] The application stands disposed of as withdrawn to the
extent of applicant No.1.
[iv] The application stands disposed of.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
