Bombay High Court
Dipak S/O. Prabhakar Raut And 4 Others vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Washim City ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:468-DB
1 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 343 OF 2024
1. Shri Dipak S/o Prabhakar Raut,
Age-41 Years, Occupation- Private.
2. Smt. Hemlata W/o Dipak Raut,
Age-35 Years, Occupation-Housewife.
3. Smt. Mira @ Nirmala Prabhakar Raut,
Age-70 Years, Occupation- Housewife,
All 1, 2 & 3 are Residents of: Plot
No.22, Adiwasi Colony, Near
Vrundavan Colony, Saibaba School,
Katol Road, Nagpur.
4. Shri Surendra Janardhan Sanke,
Age 49 Years, Occupation- Service.
5. Smt. Manisha Surendra Sanke,
Age-42 Years, Occupation- Housewife,
Both 4 and 5 Residents of: - Borgaon,
Near Dinshaw Factory, Gittikhadan,
Nagpur. APPLICANTS
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer
Police Station: - Washim City,
Tahsil & District - Washim.
2. Smt. Yogita @ Bhumika Sachin Raut
Age-27 Years, Occupation- Service,
Resident of: - Vasewaadi, Police
Quarters, Washim City, NON-
Tahsil & District- Nagpur. APPLICANTS
2 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. B.H. Tekam, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. C.S. Tamhane, Advocate for the Non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- 25th NOVEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 16th JANUARY 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard.
2. ADMIT. With the consent of learned Counsel for the
parties, the present Application is taken up for a final hearing at
the admission stage itself.
3. The Applicants seek to quash the First Information
Report (for short- 'FIR') dated 17.12.2023 bearing Crime
No.885/2023 registered with Washim Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323 and 506
3 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short- "the
IPC ") and consequent filing of the charge-sheet bearing
No.37/2024 and initiation of the criminal proceedings bearing
R.C.C. No.72/2024 pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Washim pursuant to the First Information Report.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The Applicants are in-laws of Non-applicant No.2.
Applicant No.1 is the elder brother-in-law, Applicant No.2 is the
wife of Applicant No.1, Applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law,
Applicant No.4 is the husband of applicant No. 5, Applicant
No.5 is the sister-in-law, of Non-applicant No.2. Applicant Nos.
4 and 5 are living separately at Borgaon, Nagpur and Applicant
Nos. 1 to 3 are living with Non-applicant No.2 and her husband
Sachin. The husband of Non-applicant No.2- Sachin, who is
Accused No.1, is not a party to the Application.
5. The marriage of Sachin was solemnized with Non-
applicant No.2 on 10.01.2021 as per the rights, rituals and
customs prevailing in their community at Amravati. On
17.12.2023, Non-applicant No.2 lodged the report against the
4 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
Applicants and her husband Sachin, alleging that they had
subjected her to cruelty on account of the demand for dowry. It
is also alleged that Accused Sachin was taking doubt of her
character, and on that ground, only under the influence of
liquor, he used to abuse her in filthy language and gave kicks
and fist blows to her. Also, Applicant No.1 and Accused Sachin
demanded Rs.10 Lakhs from her and asked her to bring the
same from her parents; otherwise, they would not allow her to
cohabit with Sachin. It is also alleged that Applicant No.2 was
having extramarital affairs with the Accused Sachin. Therefore,
Applicant No.2 tried to prevent her from getting married to the
accused Sachin. Applicant No.2 was abusing her and also
taunting her. The Applicant No.4 was used to defame her.
Applicant No.5 was instigating Accused Sachin to beat her.
6. Based on the report, an offence was registered
against the applicants and one Sachin vide Crime No.885/2023.
Hence, the Applicants have moved this Application.
7. By order of this Court dated 04.03.2024, the
Investigating Officer was directed to carry on the investigation,
5 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
but the charge sheet shall not be filed without obtaining the
leave of this Court. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed,
and therefore, the Applicants have amended the Application to
challenge the charge sheet and criminal proceedings pending
against them.
8. Mr. Tekam, learned Counsel for the Applicants,
vehemently contended that the Applicants are the in-laws of
Non-applicant No.2. No direct allegations appear against the
Applicants. The allegations are vague and general, and no
specific role was attributed to them. The allegations made by
the Non-applicant No.2 against the Applicants are concocted.
The Applicants have no concern with the crime and have been
falsely implicated in the present crime to harass them. The
statements of witnesses and the allegations made in the FIR are
concocted, false and frivolous against the Applicants only to
take revenge. Therefore, he submitted that this is a fit case to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court to abuse the Court's
process. Hence, he urges the quashing of the FIR and the
pending criminal proceedings against them.
6 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
9. As against this, Mr. Badar, learned APP for the Non-
applicant No.1/State, strenuously argued that the allegations in
the FIR and the statement of witnesses prima facie state that the
Applicants are actively involved in the crime. It is categorically
alleged that Applicant No.1 was making demands of dowry and
causing harassment and ill-treatment to her. Also, Applicant
No.2 was having extramarital affairs with Accused Sachin and
abused her in filthy language. Therefore, he submitted that
there was sufficient material against the Applicants to show that
they were involved in the crime, and hence, he urged for
rejection of the Application.
10. We have appreciated the rival contentions of the
learned Counsel for the parties and perused the First
Information Report and charge sheet.
11. At the outset, it appears that Non-applicant No.2
had made serious allegations against her husband Sachin, who
is not a party to the said Application. Non-applicant No.2 also
made allegations against Applicant No.1 that he, along with her
husband Sachin, had demanded the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs as
7 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
dowry and asked her to bring the said amount from her parents,
otherwise, they would not allow her to cohabit with Sachin.
Likewise, she also made the allegations against Applicant No.2
that she was having extramarital affairs with her husband,
Sachin, as such, she was harassing her by taunting and abusing
her in filthy language. Moreover, Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have
lived with Accused Sachin and Non-applicant No.2/Yogita.
12. However, no specific allegations appear against
Applicant Nos.3 to 5 about subjecting her to cruelty on account
of the demand for dowry. The allegations against Applicant
Nos.3 to 5 are vague and omnibus; they are general in nature,
and no other specific allegations were made against them about
their role played or in which manner Applicant No.5 instigated
Applicant No.1. The complaint does not provide any specific
details nor describe the particular instances of harassment
against the Applicant Nos. 3 to 5.
13. We have also gone through the statements of
Mother-Suman, Brother-Ashwin, Sisters-Roshni, and Lata of
Non-applicant No.2. All of them have reiterated the facts as
8 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
stated in the complaint. Their statements appear to be
stereotyped. What has been stated in the complaint, the same
version, has been reproduced in their statements. Furthermore,
inconsistency appears in the Complainant and statements of
witnesses with respect to the allegations against Applicant
No.3/Mira. So also, these witnesses have not provided the
details nor described the particular instances of harassment by
Applicant Nos.3 to 5. They did not mention the time, place, or
manner in which they caused the alleged harassment.
Therefore, the complaints and statements of witnesses lack
concrete and precise allegations.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently, in the case of Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & others V/s State of Telangana & Another,
2024 SCC Online SC 3682, after considering the parameters laid
down in the decision in "Bhajanlal's Case" and other various
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should
be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognized fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate
all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes
9 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
arise out of matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to
prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and
avoid unnecessarily harassing innocent family members."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Apart from the above, in Geeta Mehrotra and
Another V. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2012(10) SCC
741, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically observed that:
"if the contents of the first information report did not
disclose specific allegations against the brother and sister of the
complainant's husband to make them liable, for bickering
between non-applicant No. 2 and her husband, except the
casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct
them to go through the protracting procedure, so also by merely
making the general allegation that they were involved for
physical and mental torture of the complainant without any
allegation of their active involvement or mentioning the single
incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be
motivated the demand of dowry when they are only related to
husband as brother or sister, and therefore, quashed the
proceedings against them."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In addition, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
Others V. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2022) 6
SCC 599, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
10 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
"The Courts should be careful in the proceedings
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that relatives
of the husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the
crime are made out."
It is further observed that "the ultimate object of
justice is to find out the truth, punish the guilty, and protect the
innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in the
majority of these complaints. The tendency to implicate the
husband and all his inmate's immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even if the conclusions of a criminal trial,
it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must consider pragmatic realities while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of the harassment of the
husband's close relations, who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely the place where the complainant
resided, would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection."
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. Based on the aforesaid mandate of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the catena of decisions, we have considered the facts in
the case at hand. In the case, no specific allegations appear
against applicants Nos.3 to 5, nor are there specific allegations
against them that they demanded the dowry at any time from
the Non-applicant No.2 or were actively involved. However, the
11 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
accusations against them are vague and general. Besides, It
does not disclose specific allegations against Applicants Nos. 3
to 5 to make them liable for bickering between Non-applicant
No.2 and Accused Sachin, but only exists casual reference of
their names, it would not be appropriate to direct them to go
through the protracting procedure, so also merely making
general allegation that they were instigating the Accused Sachin
without any allegation of their active involvement or
mentioning the single incident against them, as to how they
could make the demand of dowry since the Applicants Nos. 4
and 5 are living separately. The allegations against Applicant
No.3 appear vague and omnibus without any specific incident of
her involvement in the crime.
18. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Applicant
Nos. 3 to 5 emphatically made out a case to quash the First
Information Report and criminal proceedings pending against
them by invoking the inherent powers of this Court to meet the
ends of justice; however, Applicant Nos.1 and 2 prima facie
failed to make out the case to quash the proceedings against
them in relation to Section 498-A of the IPC. Consequently,
12 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
prima facie, the material on record does not disclose the
ingredients of the commission of the offence at the hands of
Applicant Nos. 3 to 5 indicating that they had subjected the
Non-applicant No.2 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry.
In such circumstances, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution, and it would be an abuse of the process of the law
in the absence of specific allegations made against each of
them.
19. As a result, we find that the case at hand to the
extent of Applicant Nos. 3 to 5 is squarely covered by what has
been held and observed in the above-cited decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. In view of the discussion above and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that continuation of
criminal proceedings before the learned Trial Court against
Applicant Nos. 3 to 5 would result in abuse of the process of the
Court and would not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, in
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
13 CRI.APL.343-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
Sanhita, 2023, we pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The Application is partly allowed to the extent of
Applicants No.3 to 5 and dismissed against Applicants
No.1 and 2.
ii. The First Information Report bearing No.885/2023,
registered at Police Station Washim, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and filing of
the Charge-sheet bearing No.37/2024 as well as criminal
proceedings bearing R.C.C. No.72/2024 pending before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Washim against
Applicant Nos.3 to 5 pursuant to the said First
Information Report, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. Inform the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Washim,
accordingly.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/01/2025 10:28:34
