Bombay High Court
Nisha Sanjay Mitkari And Other vs Shyam Karbasappa Savare on 9 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:4095
1 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2024
PETITIONERS : 1] Nisha Sanjay Mitkari,
Aged 24 years, Occu. Teacher,
2] Sanjay Lakhsmanappa Mitkari,
Aged 42 years, Occu. Business,
3] Dilip Laxmanappa Mitkari,
Aged 42 years, Occu. Business,
4] Sakhubai Sudhakar Pandhade,
Aged 55 years, Occu. Housewife,
5] Sudhakar Vaijanath Pandhade,
Aged 60 years, Occu. Business,
All are resident of village Rohinkhed,
Tq. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : Shyam Karbasappa Savare,
Aged 55 years, Occu. None,
R/o Chaube layout, Gorakshan Road,
Tq. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amit V. Band, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K. H. Anandani, Advocate for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : APRIL 09, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
2 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking
quashment of Regular Criminal Case No. 69 of 2023 registered
against them on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
respondent filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Khamgaon, alleging that the petitioners have committed
offences punishable under Sections 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged that the marriage between
petitioner no.1 and the son of the respondent was fixed. Accordingly,
on 25.04.2021, during the engagement ceremony, gold ornaments
were gifted to petitioner no.1. One mobile phone was also gifted to
petitioner no.1 by the son of the respondent. Since, petitioner no.1
on multiple occasions, expressed her desire not to get married so
early, the marriage proposal could not be materialized and the
marriage could not be performed. The respondent asked the
3 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
petitioners to return the gold ornaments and the mobile phone gifted
to petitioner no.1. In spite of repeated demands by the respondent,
the petitioners did not hand over the gold ornaments and the mobile
phone. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 28.8.2022 at about
3.00 p.m., the petitioners/accused nos.2 to 5 had been to the house of
the respondent to demand the gold ornaments and the mobile phone,
however they refused to handover the same. They manhandled the
respondent and also threatened the respondent and his son for their
life.
4. On registration of the complaint, learned Magistrate
recorded the verification statement of the complainant. Learned
Magistrate found a prima facie case against the petitioners for taking
cognizance and accordingly, issued process against them for the
aforesaid offences.
5. I have heard Mr. Amit V. Band, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. K. H. Anandani, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the record.
6. Mr. Amit Band, learned counsel for the petitioners
4 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
vehemently submitted that no ingredient of any of the alleged
offences is made out, even if the contentions made in the complaint
filed by the respondent are accepted in toto. Learned counsel seeks
to rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachin
Garg .vs. State of U.P. and another, reported at 2024 SCC Online SC
82. In paragraph 20 of the said report, it has been held as under :
"20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a
magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie
case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is
also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram
(supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
[(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing
summons records the background of the case in rather
longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic
manner. At the stage of issue of summons, detailed
reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons,
however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied
that the allegations made by the complainant do not give
rise to the offences for which the appellant has been
summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to
have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has
been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code
certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal
complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his
mind in issuing summons and the High Court also failed to
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code
to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court."
7. It is also submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that vague allegations are made in the complaint and
5 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
the complaint is filed after passage of one year as a counter blast to
the complaint filed by petitioner no.1 against the respondent and his
relatives for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 504, 506
r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 7 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Therefore, he sought quashing of
the complaint filed by the respondent.
8. Per contra, Mr. Anandani, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the complaint discloses a prima facie case
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 452, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is
contended that the complaint very well spells out the facts which
constitute these offences.
9. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the respondent, I have gone through the complaint
minutely. The material paragraphs in the complaint are paragraph
nos.4, 5 and 6, which are reproduced below :
"4. असे असता मध्यंतरीचे काळात फिर्यादीचा मुलगा व
आरोपी कz- 1 बोलत असतांना तिने बरे चवेळा फिर्यादीचे
मुलास असे सांगीतले की तिला आता लवकर लग्न करावयाचे
नाही- आरोपी कz- 3 म्हणजेच आरोपी कz- 1 चे काका यांनी
आरोपी कz- 1 हीला विश्वासात न घेता सदरचे लग्न ठरविले
आहे व लग्न लवकर करण्याची तिला घाई करीत आहेत व
6 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
त्यासह अनेक गोष्ठी झाल्यामुळे दोन्ही पक्षांनी बसुन सदरचे
लग्न मोडले परं तु त्यावेळे स वरील दागिणे व मोबाईल हा
फिर्यादीने मागीतलेवरही आरोपींनी परत दिला नाही-
5. सदरची घटना झाल्यानंतर फिर्यादीने आरोपींना बरे चवेळा त्यांचे
वरील नमुद दागिणे व मोबाईल परत मागीतला परं तु आरोपींनी
फिर्यादीस नेहमीच उडवाउडवीची उत्तरे देवुन सदरचे दागिणे व
मोबाईल देण्यास टाळाटाळ ' के ली. जवळपास एक वर्ष उलटुन
गेल्यानंतर दि. 28/08/2022 रोजी अं. द्रुपारी 3 वाजता आरोपी कz.
2 ते 5 हे फिर्यादीचे घरी खामगाव येथे आले व फिर्यादीसोबत व त्याचे
घरातील लोकांसोबत उध्दट बोलले व म्हणाले की त्यांनी आरोपी कz. 1
सोबतचे लग्न मोडु न तिचे भविष्य अंधकारमय के लेले आहे व त्यामुळे
आरोपींनी सदरचे दागिणे व मोबाईल परत देण्यास स्पष्ट 'नकार' दिला
व खोट्या के सेसमध्ये अडकविण्याच्या धमक्या दिल्या. परं तु
फिर्यादींना सदरचा वाद पुढे वाढविणे नसल्यामुळे फिर्यादी व त्याचे
कु टुंबियांनी समजुतदारपणाची भाषा वापरली. उलट आरोपींनी
फिर्यादींना त्यांचे घरीच बसुन शिवीगाळ के ली व लोटपोट करुन
फिर्यादी व त्याचे मुलास जीवे मारण्याच्या धमक्या दिल्या व तुमचे
सामान परत करत नाही असे म्हणाले व तेथुन नीघुन गेले. त्यावेळे स
फिं र्यादीचे मोहल्ल्यातील सुरे श सदाशिवआप्पा हिंगमिरे , राहुल
आत्माराम वडोदे व अमर यशवंत खोडके हे घराबाहेर हजर होते व
त्यांनी सदरची घटना प्रत्यक्ष बघीतली आहे.
6. वर नमुद झालेल्या घटनेमुळे फिर्यादी त त्याचे घरातील लोक
घाबरुन गेले होते व त्यांना समाजात सदरचे घटनेमुळे बदनामी होईल
याची भिती वाटत होती. परं तु त्यानंतरही आरोपींनी फिर्यादींना धमक्या
देणे सुरुच ठे वले होते. त्यामुळे शेवटी नाईलाजास्तव फिर्यादीने दि.
06/09/2022 रोजी पोलीस स्टेशन शिवाजी नगर खामगाव येये
आरोपींविरुध्द तोंडी तकार दाखल के ली होती. परं तु पोलीसांनी
सदरचे तकारीची कोणतीही दखल न घेता सदरची तकार ही
अदखलपात्र गुन्हा म्हणुन नोंदविली होती व आजपावेतो सुध्दा वारं वार
विनंती करुनही सदरचे तकारीवर गंभीरपणे 'कोणतीही कारवाई
के लेली नाही. म्हणुन फिर्यादी ' प्रस्तुतचा फिर्याद अर्ज वि. न्यायालयात
त्याचेवर व मुलावर झालेल्या अन्यायास न्याय मिळे ल उददेशाने दाखल
करीत आहे."
10. The offence of cheating is defined under Section 415 of
the IPC which is reproduced here -
"415. Cheating -- Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
7 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said
to "cheat".
11. Thus for attracting the offence of cheating, a person must be
deceived and induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to
any person. However, in the present case, the respondent has come up
with a case that during the engagement ceremony, gold ornaments
and a mobile phone were handed over to petitioner no.1. Learned
counsel for the respondent tried to submit that the petitioners had an
intention to cheat him since the beginning and therefore, the offence
punishable under Section 420 of the IPC has been made out.
12. In the complaint, there is no whisper as to how the
petitioners deceived or induced the respondent to deliver the gold
ornaments and the mobile phone. Only because the petitioners failed
to return the gold ornaments and the mobile phone given to
petitioner no.1 in engagement ceremony, it cannot be said that the
offence of cheating, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, is
committed. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out to show that
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC has been
8 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
committed by the petitioners.
13. Further, in order to attract the offence punishable under
Section 323 of the IPC, hurt must be caused to a person, but there is
no whisper in the complaint that any hurt was caused to the
respondent or his relatives by the petitioners. Therefore, the
complaint does not disclose commission of offence punishable under
Section 323 of the IPC.
14. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 452, 504
and 506 of the IPC are concerned, in paragraph 5 of the complaint,
there are averments that on 28.08.2022, petitioner nos.2 to 5 came to
the house of the respondent, assaulted the respondent and his relative
and threatened him and his son for life. Therefore, I do not find force
in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is
no ingredient of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 504 and
506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC against any of the petitioners.
15. On perusal of the complaint and other documents, it
appears that no allegation has been made against petitioner no.1 in
respect of the alleged incident dated 28.08.2022. Therefore, no case
is made out against petitioner no.1 for any of the offences. So far as
9 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
complaint is a counter blast to the complaint filed by petitioner no.1 is
concerned, it is a matter to be appreciated by the learned Magistrate
during the course of trial.
16. In view of the above, the petition partly succeeds. The
complaint filed against petitioner no.1 - Nisha Sanjay Mitkari is
quashed. The complaint filed against petitioner nos.2 to 5 for the
offences punishable under Sections 420 and 323 of the IPC is
quashed. Therefore, Regular Criminal Case No. 69/2023 to proceed
against respondent nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under
Sections 452, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
17. The petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned
above. Needless to mention that this Court has not opined that no
other offences are committed by the petitioners. If the learned
Magistrate finds from the complaint during the course of the trial that
any other offence has been committed by them, it will be open for
him to decide the same in view of the contentions made in the
complaint.
(M.W.Chandwani, J.)
10 CRIWP859.24 (J).odt
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/04/2025 17:16:28
