Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 398 (BOM)

Shashikant Samarth Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

2017-02-24

K.K.SONAWANE, S.S.SHINDE

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.S. SHINDE, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Application is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 321 of 2015, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon, Taluka and District-Jalgaon, dated 26th November, 2015, against the Applicants, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that matrimonial home of Respondent No.2 situate at Dhule. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Jalgaon. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are resident of Rajkot (Gujrat State). Learned counsel submits that Applicant No.4 is sister of Rajesh i.e. husband of Respondent No.2. Applicant No.4 got married long back with Applicant No.3. The couple, i.e. Applicant Nos.3 and 4, is residing at Rajkot, Gujrat State, which is far away from Dhule. The counsel further submits that Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are parents of sister-in-law of Rajesh, husband of Respondent No.2. He further submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. as against the Applicants are general in nature without mentioning any specific incident or date. He further submits that even if the allegations in the supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 which was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 5th January 2016 are also general in nature. He submits that the alleged harassment/ill-treatment is for the period from 23rd January 2011 till 24th April 2014, however, the First Information Report has been belatedly lodged in the month of November 2015. He submits that the alleged harassment/ill-treatment is for the period from 23rd January 2011 till 24th April 2014, however, the First Information Report has been belatedly lodged in the month of November 2015. In support of his contentions that when the allegations are omnibus without mentioning any specific incident or date and those allegations are made against the relatives who are residing at different places, placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Kailas s/o Damodar Pathe and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2015(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 81, and unreported Judgments of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Girish and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Application No. 2876 of 2016 and Criminal Application No.5915 of 2016 in Criminal Application No.2876 of 2016) decided on 18th January 2017, Vikas and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Application No.5193 of 2016) decided on 27th January 2017, Sumersing and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.471 of 2014) decided on 3rd July 2015. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 invites our attention to the allegations made against the Applicants in the First Information Report and also in the supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 recorded by the Investigating Officer on 5th January 2016. They submit that upon careful perusal of the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement, it is abundantly clear that the ingredients of the alleged offences have been disclosed and therefore needs further investigation so as to take those allegations to the logical end. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 was prosecuting her medical studies at Jalgaon and Applicant Nos.1 and 2 used to call her and then harass and ill-treat her. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement will have to be read as they appear and can be tested only during the trial and hence the Application be rejected. 5. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement will have to be read as they appear and can be tested only during the trial and hence the Application be rejected. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and with their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the Application, annexures thereto, allegations in the First Information Report and also supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 and other documents places on record along with investigation papers. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the First Information Report, it appears that alleged ill-treatment and harassment is for the period from 23rd January 2011 till 24th April 2014, however the First Information was registered on 26th November 2015. Therefore, we find considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the Applicants that there is considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report. 6. So far as present Applicants are concerned, the allegations against them in the First Information Report read as under:- xxxx The allegations against the present Applicants, in the supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 are as under :- xxxx 7. Upon careful perusal of the allegations as against present Applicants, neither any specific date of incident nor any specific allegations qua each of the Applicant have been mentioned. Admittedly, Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are resident of Rajkot District situate in Gujrat State. Merely because there is allegation that they used to visit the matrimonial place during summer vacation and used to ill-treat and harass Respondent No.2, in absence of any overt act attributed qua each of the Applicant or in absence of any specific allegations, in our considered view, it will be exercise in futility to cause further investigation of such allegations. As already observed, there is delay of about 18 months in lodging the First Information Report. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband’s family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband’s family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial. In the said judgment, there is also reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein in para 12 it is observed thus: “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.” 9. The Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 " held that, in following categories the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R. "108. The Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 " held that, in following categories the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R. "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement of Respondent No.2, we find that those are general in nature without mentioning any specific overtact qua each of the Applicant and without any specific incident. Therefore, in our considered opinion, keeping in view the categories laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the case of the present Applicants would fall within category Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the aforesaid categories. In that view of the matter, inevitable conclusion is that the First Information Report, so far as present Applicants are concerned, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, the First Information Report to the extent of present Applicant Nos.1 to 4, is quashed and set aside. It is needless to observe that Investigating Officer can proceed against other accused. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) to the Application. The Application is allowed and the same stands disposed of, accordingly.