Bombay High Court
Dhananjay Sitaram Raorane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:511-DB
KVM
1/12
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.01.07
20:17:47
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 2841 OF 2019
Dhananjay Sitaram Raorane & Anr. ..... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. Mehul Shah for the Petitioners.
Ms.Anamika Vichare for the Respondent No.2.
Ms.Anuja S. Gotad, A.P.P. for the State.
Mr. Vishal R. More, Head Constable, Chiplun Police Station present.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th JANUARY, 2025
JUDGMENT ( PER - RAJESH S.PATIL, J.) :
-
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, by both the original Accused persons
against whom offence vide Crime No. 50 of 2019 has been registered
at Chiplun Police Station, Taluka Chiplun, District Ratnagiri, at the
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
behest of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections
306, 498A, 109, 201 of Indian Penal Code.
2. This Court by its order dated 7th October, 2019 (Coram :
Ranjit More & N.J.Jamadar, JJ.) issued notice to Respondent No.2.
Further by an order dated 17th February, 2020 (Coram : B. P.
Dharmadhikari & N. R. Borkar, JJ.) this Court took on record the
charge-sheet filed in the proceedings and in the meanwhile stayed
further proceedings in furtherance of C.R.No. 50 of 2019. After
Respondent No.2 appeared in the present proceedings through an
advocate, on 2nd January 2025, we have heard advocate Mr.Mehul Shah
for the Petitioner, advocate Ms.Anuja Gotad, A.P.P. for the State,
advocate Ms.Anamika Vichare for Respondent No.2.
3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the
Petitioner that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and the deceased
had taken place in the year 2002 which was not a arranged marriage,
but a love marriage and after a period of 17 years, the unfortunate
incident had occurred. The deceased was a local Sarpanch and was
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
also a mother of son Shreedaya who was studying in 10th standard at
the relevant time. The deceased had even earlier attempted to commit
suicide. The Informant who is the sister of the deceased is attached to
a rival political party, to that of the deceased, who was a Sarpanch of
the local village. The father of the deceased in his statement to the
police, has categorically mentioned that he has no grievance against the
Petitioners. It is further submitted that the husband of Petitioner No.2
and the Petitioner No.1 were partners in business, therefore the wife of
the Petitioner No.1 who is now deceased and Petitioner No.2 used to
interact with each other. It is further submitted that in fact, the
deceased had made her last telephonic call to the Informant. The fact
that the father of the deceased had no complaint against Petitioners,
and only the Informant who is the sister of the deceased, belonging to a
different political ideology and had filed a complaint after three days
proves that the said complaint was an afterthought complaint filed with
the ulterior motives to take revenge. The Sessions Court had granted
bail to Petitioner No.2 immediately on 13 th March, 2019 and the High
Court had granted bail to Petitioner No.1 on 20th March, 2019. A bare
reading of FIR, shows that the ingredients of offence punishable under
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
Sections 306, 498A, 109, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
are not made out.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner has relied
on the decision of this Court in Meenabai Deepak Mahale & Ors. vs.
the State of Maharashtra, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 952. He
submitted that the Writ Petition be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed
and set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. as well as learned advocate
appearing for Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the Petition and
submitted that the perusal of the entire FIR and charge-sheet would
show that there is ample evidence against both Petitioners to convict
them under the offence under Sections 306, 498A, 109, 201 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that once Charge-
Sheet is filed this court should not entertain the present writ petition.
The Statement recorded of witnesses and the fact that it has come on
record that the Accused no.1/ petitioner no.1, has deleted data from the
mobile phone, further proves that the Accused persons needs to face
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
trial and the F.I.R. can't be quashed at this stage.
6. For quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, and under Article 226 of the Constitution,
we have to see whether the allegations in the complaint and F.I.R.
prima facie indicate that there are serious allegations against the
accused of having committed an offence.
7. The present Writ Petition has been jointly preferred by
both the Accused. The Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1 is the husband of
the deceased lady, who has committed suicide. It is the case of the
prosecution that the deceased was under tremendous pressure as she
got knowledge that Petitioner No.1, who is her husband and Petitioner
No.2 who is the wife of the partner of her husband, had illicit
relationship. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the police after a complaint
being lodged by the Informant who is the sister of the deceased. The
Informant has come up with the case that due to the illicit relationship
of Petitioner No.1, with the Petitioner No.2, the deceased was under
tremendous pressure. Hence, she committed the suicide on 5th
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
February, 2019 by consuming poison, due to which the deceased died
on 6th February, 2019. In the complaint attached to the F.I.R. it has been
specifically stated as under : " ..... माझ्या नवयाचे बाहे र काय प्रताप आहे त त्याने
त्याची पार्टनर स्मि मता झा हीचे शी त्याची जवळीक वाढली असून माझ्याकडे साधे बोलायला सु द्धा
वे ळ नाही. त्याने व स्मि मता झा यांनी एकत्र फोर्टो दे खील काढले आहे त. तु ला मी स्मिवचारत नाही
असे वे ळोवे ळी बोलून माझ्याशी वाद घालून त्रास दे त असतो परं तु त्याबाबत मी तु झ्याकडे व
माहे री काम सां गन
ू मी माझ्या इज्जतीला जपते . पण त्याचा माझा नवरा गै रफायदा घे तोय याला
आता खूप कंर्टाळली आहे माझा आज वाढस्मिदवस आहे परं तु माझ्या नवयाने मला स्मिवष सु द्धा केले
नाही तर इतरांचे फोन कशाला घे ऊ त्यांना त्यां च्या मै स्मितर् णीकडे बोलायला वे ळ असतो. मी ज्या
बे डरूम मध्ये झोपले तर तो दुसऱ्या बे डरूम मध्ये जाऊन झोपतो. माझी अपु लीकीने कधी चौकशी
करत नाही मला जगण्यात काही अर्थ नाही अशी रडल्या आवाजात बोलत होती त्यावे ळी मी स्मितची
समजूत काढली त्यानं तर मी स्मितच्या नवऱ्याला फोन करून अपूचा आज वाढस्मिदवस असताना तू स्मितला
का स्मिवष केले नाहीस असे स्मिवचारले त्यावे ळी त्यांनी जाऊदे स्मितची ने हमीचीच नार्टके असतात असे
रागाने म्हणाला......"
8. The police has recorded the statement of witness during
the information which includes the statement of the son (Shreedaya) of
Petitioner No.1 and the deceased. His statement is part of the charge-
sheet which is annexed in the present proceedings at page no. 109. In
the said statement, the son Shreedaya has mentioned that on 5 th
February, 2019 when his mother was taken to hospital, his father had
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
handed over the mobile phone of his mother to him and while checking
the said mobile phone, he came across a message which reads as
under :-
ßvkt rqyk cFkZMs ps ljizkbZt vkgs- ;kiq<s rqyk ekb;koj jkxok;pk pkUl
feG.kkj ukgh vkrk rqyk ek>k psgjkgh fnl.kkj ukgh- xqM ck;Þ
9. The police in their reply to the bail application, a copy of
which is annexed to the charge-sheet has specifically stated that
Petitioner No.1 has deleted WhatsApp messages and photographs from
the mobile phone of the deceased. Hence, a vital part of evidence has
been destroyed by Petitioner No.1, which attracts the provisions of
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The police has further stated
that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. They have further stated that though the deceased has
consumed poison, the container from which the poison was consumed,
is not recovered and the police has an apprehension that the Accused
has destroyed the same. The police has also doubt about the prima
facie medical treatment given to the deceased, by the brother of
Petitioner No.1, was not proper.
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
10. The police has also obtained laboratory analysis
conclusion and report of Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory.
So also, they obtained CDR of the mobile number of the deceased and
the Accused. The son of the deceased has mentioned that he was
staying with the Informant, who is his mother's sister as he was
studying in 10th standard. Therefore, the theory put up by the
Petitioners that the Informant due to difference in political ideology
and out of ulterior motives has filed complaint before police against the
Petitioners, according to us in highly unbelievable. Print outs of the
WhatsApp messages between Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 are
annexed to the charge-sheet, which are enclosed at page no. 76.
11. As far as the decision referred by Petitioners in case of
Meenabai Deepak Mahale & Ors. (supra) of the Division Bench of this
Court is concerned, the facts of that case were very different. In the
said case, the brother of the deceased wife had roped in, the husband of
the deceased alongwith his relatives. In the said proceedings, based on
the statement of the daughter of the deceased, the Division Bench came
to the conclusion that ingredients of offence punishable under Sections
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
306, 498A, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out.
12. In the present proceedings, the deceased has committed
suicide on her birthday. Her son was studying in 10 th standard and
staying with his mother's sister (eko"kh)/Informant, who has made a
categorical statement with the police during investigation that he had
checked the WhatsApp message on his mother's mobile. The said
WhatsApp message has been reproduced in the earlier part of the
judgment. Hence, the observations made in the judgment of Meenabai
Deepak Mahale & Ors. (supra) will not be applicable to the present
proceedings.
13. The Supreme Court in the judgments of (i) State of
Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii)
Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab & others, (2020) 3 SCC 317 and (iii)
Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 9 SCC 35 ,
have held that exercise of powers under section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceedings is an exception and not a rule. Appreciation of evidence is
not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings is exercise of
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
powers under Section 482 CrPC.
14. In the recently reported judgment of CBI vs. Aryan Singh,
AIR 2023 SC 1987, the Supreme Court has held that while examining
the power under Section 482, the High Court should not conduct a mini
trial. Similarly in the judgment of State of Odisha vs. Pratima
Mohanty and others, (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Supreme Court has held
that once the charge-sheet is filed, the High Court should be reluctant
to quash the complaint. Paragraph no.8.2 of the judgment reads as
under :
8.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per the settled proposition of
law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the
court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of
allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should
be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482
CrPC when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.
At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under section
482 CrPC the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations
and/or evidence in detail as if conducting the mini-trial. As held by this
court the powers under section 482 CrPC are very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts all onerous and
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
more diligent duty on the Court.
[Emphasis supplied]
15. In the present proceedings, the charge-sheet has been
already filed on 31st December 2019 and the police have recorded the
statement of 35 witnesses, copies of which are enclosed with the
charge-sheet and forms part of the records of the present proceedings.
As this Court had granted stay to the trial proceedings by Order dated
17th February 2020 the matter before the Trial Court did not proceed
further.
16. After considering the contents of FIR and the various
documents on record attached to the FIR, and the Charge-sheet, we are
satisfied that it constitutes the ingredients of the offences alleged.
Taking into account the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the
judgments referred above, we find that there is no merit in the present
Writ Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the
following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
KVM
WP 2841 OF 2019.odt
(ii) Needless to state, any observations made herein are
only for the purposes of deciding the Writ Petition only
and would have no bearing on the final adjudication of
the proceedings.
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J. ]
