Bombay High Court
Shrikant Ramakant Awadke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1579-DB
(1)
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3670 OF 2024
1. Shrikant S/o Ramakant Awadke,
Age : 38 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Mukramabad Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. (Husband)
2. Satyawati W/o Ramakant Awadke,
Age : 59 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Mukramabad, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded. (Mother-in-law)
3. Shubhangi W/o Prashant Tondure,
Age : 47 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Behind New Bus Stand,
Bidar Tq. & Dist. Bidar (Karnataka)
(Sister-in-law)
4. Sheela W/o Sachin Patil,
Age : 40 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Apparao Chowk, Degloor Road,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur,
now residing in Qatar.
(Sister-in-law)
5. Manisha W/o Chandrakant Sukunge,
Age : 50 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Barhali (A) Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. (Aunt-in-Law)
6. Chandrakant S/o Pandurang Sukunge,
Age : 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture, (abated since deceased)
R/o. Barhali (A) Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. (Uncle-in-Law) ..Applicants
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Aurad Shahajani Police Station,
Dist. Latur
(2)
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
2. Shweta Shrikant Awadke,
Age : 27 Years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Shivajinagar, Aurad Shahajani,
Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur .. Respondents
....
Advocate for the applicants : Mr. N. P. Patil
A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 State : Adv. R. P. Gour
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 06, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J):
-
1. The applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court
vested under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' for the sake of brevity) in
order to challenge FIR No. 0262 of 2024 registered against them with
Aurad Shahajani Police Station, District Latur on 01.08.2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')
2. Respondent No.2 is the informant. The applicants are related
to respondent No.2 as under :-
applicant No.1 Husband
Applicant No.2 Mother-in-law
applicant No.3 sister-in-law
applicant No.4 sister-in-law
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
applicant No.5 ( sister of mother-in-law)
applicant No.6 (husband of applicant No.5).
3. The applicant No.6 has expired on 05.10.2024. Death
certificate dated 21.10.2024, issued by Gram Panchayat Bapsherwadi
Taluka Mukhed District Nanded is produced on record by the learned
Advocate for the applicants. It is taken on record and marked as
Exhibit 'A'. Since applicant No.6 has expired, the proceeding stands
abated as against him.
4. Respondent No.2 has mentioned in the First Information Report
that her marriage with applicant No.1 was solemnized on 15.03.2017.
She states that the in-laws treated her well for a period of
approximately two months and thereafter started harassing her. The
allegations in the First Information Report are that all the applicants
used to make complaints on the ground that she was not good
looking, she was not well mannered and she could not cook food
properly. Apart from this, it is also alleged that all the applicants used
to ask her to bring an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father for
purchasing a plot. She has stated that she was also abused, beaten
and accordingly harassed and ill-treated by all the applicants and
further that on 28.11.2018, she was forcibly expelled from her
matrimonial home. All these allegations have been levelled against all
the applicants. It is thereafter stated that a meeting of family
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
members and relatives on both sides was held in order to resolve the
issue, however, in that meeting also the applicants refused to take
back respondent No.2 in her matrimonial house stating that she was
not good looking and well mannered and could not cook food. The
period of alleged illtreatment is mentioned as 15.05.2017 to
28.11.2018.
5. The learned Advocate for the applicants Shri. N. P. Patil, has
argued that all the allegations in the First Information Report are
lacking in material particulars. He states that leave apart the date and
time even tentative period of alleged harassment and ill-treatment is
not mentioned. He further states that it is inconceivable that all the
applicants i.e. applicant Nos. 1 to 6 had committed the said act
together as alleged in the First Information Report. He also points
out that although an allegation is levelled with respect to demand of
Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchasing plot, the allegation in the First
Information Report is that, Rs. 5,00,000/- should be provided in
order to purchase of a plot for all the applicants. He specifically points
out the word 'Amhala' i.e. 'us' mentioned in the First Information
Report. He further states that in the meeting for reconciliation,
demand for dowry is not made even according to respondent No.2.
He then submits that the offence is allegedly committed between
15.05.2017 to 28.11.2018 and the First Information Report is lodged
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
on 01.08.2024. He submits that there is not a single word offering
explanation for the delay in lodging the First Information Report. He
submits that the First Information Report is lodged after a period of
approximately 5 years and 10 months. On the delay his submission is
twofold, firstly that the First Information Report is barred by time and
secondly unexplained delay indicates false implication. The learned
counsel for the applicants has drawn our attention to Annexure 'A'
which is residency permit issued by the State of Qatar to applicant
No.4 to point out that she is not even residing in India. He further
draws our attention to Hindu Marriage Petition No. 164 of 2019 filed
by applicant No.1 to contend that despite filing of divorce petition,
respondent No.2 did not lodge the First Information Report at the
relevant time. He would contend that the First Information Report is
lodged at the stage when the divorce petition is posted for arguments.
His contention is that, the First Information Report is lodged in order
to exert pressure on applicant No.1 to withdraw the divorce petition.
6. As against this, Mrs. R. P. Gour, the learned A.P.P. submits that in
cases of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, First Information
Report should not be quashed on the ground of delay since a wife
always has a hope that the issue would be reconciled sooner or later
and therefore, does not rush with lodging of First Information Report
since such step is likely to bring an end to every possibility of amicable
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
settlement permanently. She submits that offence under Section 498-A
of the IPC offers recurring/continuous cause of action. She further
states that allegation with respect to demand for dowry is clearly
made in the First Information Report and as regards the word
Amhala/ us she states that it is obvious that demand was for applicant
Nos. 1 and 2.
7. Respondent No.2 is served in the matter but has not bothered to
appear in order to oppose the present application.
8. We have perused the First Information Report and other
material on record. Perusal of the First Information Report clearly
indicates that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are omnibus
in nature. They are absolutely vague and lacking in all material
particulars. The allegations are not person specific. They do not refer
to any tentative period of alleged harassment or illtreatment. The fact
that even according to respondent No.2 demand for dowry was not
made during the conciliation meeting is also factor that needs to be
taken into consideration. The delay in lodging of the First
Information Report coupled with the fact that respondent No.2 has not
offered any explanation for the delay speaks of itself. We find that the
contention of the applicants that the First Information Report is
lodged after a period of over five years and ten months at the stage
when the divorce petition is posted for arguments. It is also correct
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
that there is no statement in the First Information Report explaining
the delay.
9. We are of the clear opinion that the First Information Report has
been lodged as an arm-twisting pressurizing tactics. The contents of
the First Information Report taken on face value do not make out any
case to continue prosecution against any of the applicants. We find
that respondent No.2 is trying to give a penal colour to the
matrimonial dispute between herself and her husband i.e. applicant
No.1 and for that purpose she has impleaded the name of applicant
No.2, so also applicant Nos. 3 and 4 who are sisters-in-law and
applicants Nos. 5 & 6 who are the sister of mother-in-law and her
husband. This is a clear case of abuse of criminal process. We rely
upon ratio of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters
of
(i) Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667]
(ii) Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 741].
(iii) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of
Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599].
(iv) Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab [(2024) SCC OnLine
3473]
(v) Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
Pradesh [ (2024) SCC OnLine 127]
10. All these judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly lay
down that general and omnibus allegations are not enough to sustain
criminal prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also cautioned that in cases of
prosecution under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Courts must read
between the lines to find out the true intent. It is held that over
implication has become a norm in the matrimonial disputes and cases
under Sections 498-A of the IPC.
11. In view of what we have recorded above, we are clearly of the
opinion that the present case is also one of the kind in which
respondent No.2 wife has initiated criminal prosecution against her
husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and also sister of mother-in-law
and her husband by making omnibus allegations. She has not been
able to provide any particulars of the alleged ill-treatment. She is also
not able to assign any specific role to any applicant individually.
Applicant Nos. 3 to 6 are also not residing with applicant Nos. 1 and
2. Apart from this, the timing of lodging of the First Information
Report and delay also speak about the intention on the part of
respondent No.2.
12. The aspect of delay needs to be viewed in the light of section
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
514 of the BNSS. Section 514 of BNSS provides limitation of three
years for taking cognizance of offence punishable with sentence for a
term not exceeding three years. Offence under Section 498-A of the
IPC is sentence punishable up to three years. The limitation is
therefore, governed by Section 514 (2)(c) of BNSS The complaint is
filed beyond the period of three years and is barred by limitation.
Section 514 of BNSS bars taking cognizance of such offence beyond
prescribed period of limitation. However, cognizance of the offence
can be taken beyond the period of limitation in view of Section 519 of
the BNSS.
13. The cognizance of offence can be taken beyond the period of
limitation in two contingencies
(i) That the delay has been properly explained
or
(ii) That is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.
As regards the first aspect of the explanation, there is not a
single word either in the First information Report or in the subsequent
statement recorded during the course of the investigation explaining
the delay. Respondent No.2 has failed to explain delay caused in
initiation of the criminal prosecution by lodging the First Information
Report. As regards the second aspect i.e. to take cognizance of an
offence in the interest of justice, although it is barred by limitation,
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
we have already held above that contents of the First Information
Report and other material including statements of witnesses recorded
during the course of investigation do not make out essential
ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We may also
observe that the contents of the First Information Report and
statements clearly demonstrate attempt to implicate all the family
members of the estranged husband. The timing of First Information
Report is also very peculiar i.e. it is filed at the time when the divorce
petition was filed by the husband and was posted for final arguments.
Having regard to the above, we are of the opinion that it will not be in
the interest of justice to take cognizance of the matter which is filed
beyond prescribed period of limitation. In fact, while dealing with the
merits of the matter, we have observed that continuation of
prosecution against the applicants will amount to abuse of legal
process since essential ingredients of the offences are pertinently
absent.
14. One of the contentions raised by the learned A.P.P. is that offence
under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence and, therefore,
period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment while the
offence is continuing. She has placed reliance on Section 518 to
buttress this contention. In this context, when we referr to the First
Information Report, it is clearly stated in the First Information Report
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
that the alleged ill-treatment, harassment by the applicants was from
15.05.2017 to 28.11.2018. Respondent No.2 claims that she was
forcibly ousted at the matrimonial house on 28.11.2018 and from then
onwards she is residing with her parents. She has thereafter referred
to reconciliation meeting between both families held in the year 2018
in the First Information Report. The date or month of alleged meeting
is not mentioned. The last date of harassment as per First Information
Report is 28.11.2018. The reconciliation meeting is alleged to be held
in the year 2018 itself. It is alleged that in the reconciliation meeting
as well, the in-laws of respondent No.2 has levelled allegations against
her and also abused her. Therefore, even if the date of meeting which
was held in the year 2018 is considered to be last date of harassment,
the harassment did not continue as per version of respondent No.2
beyond 31.12.2018. The period of three years limitation prescribed
under Section 514 expired on 31.12.2021. The First Information
Report as stated above is lodged on 01.08.2024 i.e. after a period of
2 years and 7 months.
15. We propose to deal with the contention by relying upon
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arun Vyas
and another Vs. Anita Vyas reported in (1999 )4 SCC 690 . The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the said decision that an offence
under Section 498-A is continuing offence and on every occasion on
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
which the wife is subjected to cruelty, she will have a new starting
point of limitation. It is thus clear that continuing cause of action
would not mean that the cause of action shall continue perennially.
The cause of action shall continue only till the last incident of cruelty.
The last incident of cruelty in the present case is not beyond
31.12.2018.
16. Normally we would have considered remanding the matter back
to the learned Magistrate to consider the point of limitation, however,
since we have held that essential ingredients of Section 498-A are also
not made out and have proceeded to decide the matter on merits as
well, we have not remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate but
have decided the point of limitation ourselves. In view of the above
discussion, we deem it appropriate to allow the application and pass
the following order :-
ORDER
(I) The application is allowed.
(II) First Information Report No.0262 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024
registered with Aurad Shahajani Police Station, District Latur
for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby
quashed against all, i.e. applicant No.1 Shrikant S/o Ramakant
Awadke, applicant No.2 Satyawati W/o Ramakant Awadke,
Cri. Appln. No. 3670-2024.odt
applicant No.3 Shubhangi W/o Prashant Tondure, applicant
No.4 Sheela W/o Sachin Patil, applicant No.5 Manisha W/o
Chandrakant Sukunge.
(III) First Information Report No.0262 of 2024 stands abated against
deceased applicant No.6 Chandrakant S/o Pandurang Sukunge.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
