Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1982 (BOM)

Arvind s/o. Pyarelal Jain v. State of Maharashtra

2016-10-20

S.S.SHINDE, SANGITRAO S.PATIL

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. This Petition is filed seeking quashment of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.217 of 2015 (for short ‘FIR’) registered with Dhule City Police Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to the extent it relates to the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the FIR are general in nature. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It is also not stated that on which date the incident of harassment and mental cruelty is caused. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 left matrimonial home on 07.06.2015 and the FIR is lodged on 03.11.2015. There is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that, respondent no.2 has put it in writing on 07.06.2015 that, her husband and herself are from the medical profession, therefore, she has decided to start residing with her husband peacefully in future. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invites our attention to the contents of the said alleged written statement of respondent no. 2 (at Exh.R3, Page 73) of the compilation of the Criminal Writ Petition, and submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that, when there are no specific allegations in the FIR, such FIR deserves to be quashed, presses into service exposition of law in the cases of Neelu Chopra and Anr. Vs. Bharti AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950, Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2010 AIR SCW 4975 and Swapnil and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2014 AIR SCW 6056. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites our attention to the allegations in the FIR and also the averments in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2, and submits that the allegations in the FIR will have to be read as they are and can only be tested during trial. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 presses into service exposition of law in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2015 AIR SCW 1817. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 presses into service exposition of law in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2015 AIR SCW 1817. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 further submits that respondent no.2 has never given statement on 07.06.2015, and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the said statement is totally baseless. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned APP appearing for the respondent – State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. With their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, an allegation in the FIR, the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2, the relevant provisions of the IPC and the judgments cited supra by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no.2. With their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, an allegation in the FIR, the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2, the relevant provisions of the IPC and the judgments cited supra by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no.2. At the outset it would be apt to reproduce herein below the relevant portion from the FIR, which would spell out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners:- ¼1½ ;g fd vkosfndk dk fookg fnukad 04-12-13 dks fganq jhfr fjoktkuqlkj lkr Hkkaoj iMdj 'kgj /kqys ¼/kqfy;k½ rglhy og ftyk /kqys egkjk"Vª eas vukosnd dz&1 ds lkFk lEiUu gqvk FkkA ¼2½ ;g fd fookg ds nkSjku vukosndx.k dh ekax vuqlkj vkosfndk ds ekrk&firk us vukosndx.k dks ngst esa 8 yk[k :i;k uxn 12 rksyk lksus dh tsoj] 40 xzke lksus ds 40 flDds] 800 xzke pkanh dk tsoj] diMs+ o ?kj x`gLFkh dk lkeku dqy 16 yk[k :i;k fn;s FksA ¼3½ ;g dh fookg ds ckn vkosfndk viuh llqjky /kqys egkjk"Vª xbZ o vukosndx.k ds lkFk jgh ml nkSjku vkosfndk ds llqjky igqapus ij vukonsdx.kksa us dqN ngst ds crZu o lkeku ifjogu eas pVd x;k Fkk mls vkosfndk ,oa vkosfndk ds HkkbZ o firk ds lkeus tehu ij iVd dj rksM+ fn;k o vkosfndk o mlds firk] HkkbZ dks [kjh [kksVh lqukdj VwVk lkeku o crZu okil ys tkus dks dgkA ¼4½ ;g fd vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ls vkosfndk ds fj'rsnkjks dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr iwNdj dgk fd fdl&fdl fj'rsnkjksa us D;k&Dk tsoj fn;s crkvksA vukonsdx.k ;g Hkyh&Hkkafr tkurs Fks fd] vkosfndk f'kf{kr o MkWDVjh dh ch-Mh-,l- fMxzh/kkjh ;qorh gS mls ckotwn vukosndx.kksa us vkosfndk dks tehu ij pVkbZ ij lqyk;k dqRrks dks Qsaddj tSls [kkuk fn;k tkrk gS oSlk [kkuk [kkus dks fn;k Hkh"k.k xehZ esa dqyj o ia[kk jkr ,oa nksigj es ugha pykus nsrsA xehZ ds 3 eghus rd Nr ij lqyk;k vkSj xkyh xykSp dj MkWV&QVdkj dj dgk fd fcuk ia[kk] dqyj ds lksus dh vknr Mky yksA vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ÷kkMw iksNk djokrs vkSj vukosnd dz- 1] 2] 3] 4 vkosfndk ls vius iSj] flj] 'kjhj esa rsy yxokdj ekfy'k djokdj dgrs fd] ukSdjkuh cudj vkbZ gks ukSdjkuh dh rjg gh jgukA vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks fcuk ugk;s izfrfnu lqcg 5 cts ls [kkuk cukus dks etcwj djrsA vkosfndk dks isV o 'kjhj ds vanj nnZ rdyhQ gksus ij fpfdRld ls bykt ,oa lksuksxzkQh ugha djkrs cfYd 'kjhj ij feV~Vh dk rsy yxkus o pw.kZ [kkdj rdyhQ nwj djus dks dgrsA ¼5½ ;g fd lqcg ls jkf= rd ?kj&x`gLFkh ds dke esa foyEc gksrk rks vukosndx.k xkyh xykSp dj vkosfndk o mlds ekrk firk ds ckjs es vi'kCn cksydj /kedh nsrs fd ek;ds Hkxk nsaxsA vkosfndk viuh jkstejkZ dh t:jr dh phtksa dh ekax djrh rks vukosndx.k ;gh dgrs fd] vius cki ls ekax ysukA vukosndx.k ,d nwljs dks vkosfndk ds ckjs es HkM+dkdj dku Hkjdj vkosfndk dks fcuk dkj.k otg ds MkWV&QVdkj dj xkyh xykSp dj viekfur djrs jgrsA vukosnd dz- 5 o 6 tc vius ?kj ij jgrs rks os Qksu o vkosfndk dh xkyh xykSp dj /kedkrs fd rqEgkjs dkj.k ?kj cckZn gks tk,xk vius cki ds ikl Hkksiky ,oa lkxj tkvksA vkosfndk us llqjky esa jgus ds nkSjku vukosnd dz- 1] 2] 3 us vkosfndk dks O;fDrxr o /kkfeZd t:jr ds fy, ,d :i;k Hkh ugha fn;k cfYd ekaxus ij ;gh dgk tkrk fd] vkius cki ds ;gka ls ys vkvksA ¼6½ ;g fd vukosndx.kksa us vkosfndk dks etcwj fd;k fd og vius firk ls 15 yk[k :i;s ngst esa vkSj nsus dks dgs rc vkosfndk ds firk vkosfndk dh llqjky x, vkSj 15 yk[k :i;s nsdj vk;sA dqN fnu ckn vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ysdj Hkksiky vk;s vkSj vkosfndk ds ekrk&firk vius Hkksiky okys egky es :ds FksA ogka igaqpdj vukosndx.kks us 5 yk[k :i;ksa ngst esa vkSj nsus dks dgk] ij vkosfndk ds firk O;oLFkk ugha dj ldsA rks vukosnx.k fnukad 06-06-2015 dks vkosfndk dks] vkosfndk ds ekrk&firk ds ikl NksM+dj pys x, vkSj /kedh ns x, rks :i;kas dh O;oLFkk gks tk;s rks fizUlh dks Hkstuk] vkSj fcuk :i;ks ds fizUlh llqjky xbZ rks foLQksV esa fizUlh dh tku pyh tk;s rks gels er dgukA ¼7½ ;g fd vkosfndk ,oa mlds ekrk&firk us vukosnd dks Qksu dj vkosfndk dks j[kus ds fy, dgk] vkSj ,d fnu Lo;a vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk vukosndks ds ikl /kqys egkjk"Vª x,A ij vukosnx.kks us vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk dks vi'kCn dgdj ihus rd dk ikuh ugha fn;k cfYd ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k] vkSj dgk fd tc&tCk :i;ks dh t:jr iMs+xh rc&rc rqEgas nsuk iMs+xk] oukZ fizUlh XkSl flysUMj foLQksV esa ej ldrh gSA etcwj gksdj vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk ,d gksVy es Bgj dj okil vius ?kj vk x,A ¼8½ ;g fd vukosnx.k o vkosfndk dks mlds ekrk&firk ds ikl yk jgs Fks rc llqjky esa gh vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ds lkjs lksus pkanh ds tsoj o L=h/ku Nhudj ,oa mrjokdj vius ikl j[k fy;k Fkk rFkk vukosnx.kks us llqjky es jgus ds nkSjku vkosfndk dks Mjk /kedk dj dqN ckrsa dgus dks etcwj dj mu ckrks dks eksckbZy esa Vsi dj yh vkSj mUgha ckrks dks lquk&lquk dj vkosfndk dks rykd nsus dh /kefd;k ns jgs gSA vkosfndk vukosndx.kks dks ekufld] 'kkjhfjd ;krukvksa ,oa ngst dh ekax ls cgqr nq[kh gS vkSj vukosndks ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh pkgrh gSA vr% Jheku th ls fouez fuosnu gS fd vukosndx.kks ij mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh n;k djsaA lkxj fnukad 20-10-2015 vkosfndk ds gLRkk{kj vaxzsth esaA 6. On careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, it is abundantly clear that there are specific allegations in respect of ill-treatment, harassment and demand of money from the informant and her parents. The ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are, prima facie, disclosed. Whether the said allegations are true or otherwise cannot be gone into while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is delay in lodging the FIR needs to be considered in the background stated in the FIR that the parents and relatives of respondent no.2 made serious attempts to convince the petitioners not to further ill-treat and harass respondent no.2. However, their efforts went in vain. In the case of Taramani Parakh (supra), the appellant therein left matrimonial home on 02.04.2010 and FIR was lodged on 19.05.2011 even then the Supreme Court entertained the appeal filed by the original complainant and in para no.15 held thus: 15. There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible. 7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case the appellants therein were sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law of the victim/wife, who were residing at different places and did not visit the place of incident, nor did live with victim/wife and her husband. However, in the present case the petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, who were residing in matrimonial house jointly with respondent no.2 and her husband. Therefore, the facts of the present case vis-a-vis in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) are different. In the case of Neelu Chopra (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the case of the appellants who were the aged parents of the husband. Therefore, the facts of the present case vis-a-vis in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) are different. In the case of Neelu Chopra (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the case of the appellants who were the aged parents of the husband. In that case the husband Rajesh had died and the main allegations were only against him. The Supreme Court found no cogent material against the other accused. 8. In the case of Swapnil and others (supra), the Court has recorded that application for restitution of conjugal right filed by husband was withdrawn as wife was not interested to live together with the husband. Allegations in the FIR were vague and the details as to place and the time of incident were not mentioned. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another Vs. Monica and others (2014) 3 SCC 383 in para 11 of the judgment has held that the facts, as alleged, in the FIR will have to be proved which can be done only in the course of a regular trial. The appreciation, in a summary manner, of the averments made in the FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing of FIR and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face thereof. 10. In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, in our opinion, there is no substance in the Criminal Writ Petition. Hence the same stands rejected. We make it clear that observations made herein before are prima facie in the nature and shall not influence further proceedings, if any.