Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2462 (BOM)

Aniket Jayprakash Chavan v. State of Maharashtra

2022-11-28

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, VIBHA KANKANWADI

body2022
JUDGMENT : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. 1. Instant criminal application, at the instance of applicants herein, is by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashment of crime and charge-sheet arising out of complaint lodged at the instance of present respondent No. 2. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Applicant No. 1 is husband and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are in-laws of respondent No. 2, applicant No. 4 is brother-in-law of respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 5 is grandmother-in-law of respondent No. 2. 3. In the FIR complainant-Jayshri Aniket Chavan (respondent No. 2) alleged that she was married to applicant No. 1 on 24th May, 2014. Her husband is conducting business of mineral water at Nighoje, Chakan, Tq. Khed, District Pune. That after marriage she came to reside with her husband and in-laws, where all the applicants are staying together. It is the case of the complainant that, for a week after the marriage, she was treated properly by her in-laws. However, subsequently, husband and all her in-laws taunted her saying that proper honours were not given to them in the marriage, and therefore, she should bring Rs.2,00,000/- and she alleged that on such count they beat her and subjected her to physical ill-treatment. According to the complainant, her father came at her matrimonial house and gave understanding to her husband and in-laws that he will fulfill their demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, she was treated properly for six months. But again after six months, ill-treatment was resumed. She was abused, kept starved and driven out of the house. According to her, demand of Rs.2,00,000/- was met by her parents. Thereafter, after few days, again in-laws put up demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for expanding the business. According to her, finally, on 5th October, 2017, applicants beat her and threatened to kill her and her son and had driven both of them out of the house. Therefore, she approached Police and registered aforesaid crime against the applicants. 4. It is in the above background applicants approached this Court for relief of quashment and for nullifying the criminal proceedings initiated against them. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that complaint is motivated one. According to him, there was no demand of money and there was no ill-treatment to respondent No. 2, either physical or mental, at the hands of the applicants. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that complaint is motivated one. According to him, there was no demand of money and there was no ill-treatment to respondent No. 2, either physical or mental, at the hands of the applicants. According to him, on the contrary, complainant herself was not interested in cohabiting with her husband after marriage. She was insisting for going back to her parental home repeatedly. Thereafter, she made demand of separate residence and she was not ready to live with her in-laws. She repeatedly used to go to her parents’ home and never returned to her matrimonial house on her own, until brought back. It is pointed out that because of her unwillingness to cohabit, after several attempts, applicant No. 1 husband was constrained to apply for divorce. She did not respond. Therefore, trial Court was constrained to proceed in her absence and ex-parte divorce decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed (Rajgurunagar), District Pune in Divorce Petition No. 25 of 2018 by Judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2018. It is emphasized that on getting knowledge of the same, with an oblique motive to harass the applicants, present complaint has been fled. It is malicious prosecution without a grain of truth and it is mere attempt to harass applicant No. 1 husband and his relatives with revengeful attitude. Therefore, according to him, continuation of such proceeding is clear abuse of process of law and hence, he prayed for relief as sought in the application. 5. On behalf of respondent No. 1-State, learned APP submits that applicants are named in the complaint. Their roles are also defined. All the applicants mal-treated the complainant jointly. There is ample evidence in the form of statements of relatives. Investigation is complete. There being sufficient evidence, applicants are liable to face prosecution. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application. 6. Learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2 also opposed the application submitting that shortly after marriage, the applicants started ill-treating respondent No. 2 on account of failure to give proper honours in the marriage. They initially put up a demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, they put up a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for expanding the business of her husband. Because of non-fulfillment of the demand, she was abused, beaten, kept starved and driven out of the house. They initially put up a demand of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, they put up a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for expanding the business of her husband. Because of non-fulfillment of the demand, she was abused, beaten, kept starved and driven out of the house. It is pointed out that even without notice, ex-parte divorce has been sought and divorce decree has been obtained. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 7. We have heard learned Advocate for the applicants, learned APP for respondent No. 1-State and learned Advocate for respondent No. 2. 8. In the present case, applicants are seeking relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR as well as criminal proceedings arising out of it. 9. Law is squarely settled regarding the circumstances under which powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should to be exercised. On the point of object, scope and exercise of powers of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are slew of Judgments and few landmark Judgments on this points are as under: In the landmark case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 , it was observed as under: “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” (i) to give effect to an order under the Code. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Vrat Singh vs. Shyam Singh Sahai, (2009) SCC Supp. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Vrat Singh vs. Shyam Singh Sahai, (2009) SCC Supp. 709, while dealing with the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as under: “6. The Section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation-continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 7. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See: Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 and Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 4 SCC 359 ].” 10. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , after dealing with previous land mark cases on this ground in Para 18 has held as under: “18. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , after dealing with previous land mark cases on this ground in Para 18 has held as under: “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy.” Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 11. On the touch-stone of above legal settled position, we proceed to deal with the case in hand to ascertain whether case is made out for quashment of the FIR and consequential proceeding. 12. On visiting the FIR fled at the instance of respondent No. 2, it is emerging that she and applicant No. 1 were married on 24th May, 2014. Allegations are that after a week of marriage, inlaws, who were unhappy for not giving honours to them in the marriage, asked her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Exactly when such demand was raised is not mentioned in the complaint. Thereafter, for some days she was treated properly but again after six months, it is alleged that as the demand was not fulfilled, she subjected to mal-tratment and even asked to leave the house. It is stated in the complaint that her parents paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant No. 1-husband. When such amount was paid is also not specified in the complaint. According to her, she gave birth to a son in 2015. It is stated in the complaint that her parents paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant No. 1-husband. When such amount was paid is also not specified in the complaint. According to her, she gave birth to a son in 2015. It is stated that she was treated well for some period. But again the applicants put up a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for expanding business of mineral water and on that count she was abused, beaten and driven out of the house. Finally, on 5th October, 2017, she was driven out of the house after being abused, beaten and threatened to kill her son. Hence, she approached to Police and lodged the complaint. 13. Record and files show that applicant No. 1 husband instituted proceeding for divorce in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khed-Rajgurunagar. District Pune, vide proceeding bearing No. 25 of 2018 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Documents show that applicant No. 1 - husband succeeded in getting decree of divorce though it was ex-parte in nature. Such divorce was granted vide Judgment and order passed on 23rd April, 2018. It is apparent that instant complaint is lodged on 12th February, 2020 at the hands of respondent No. 2 i.e. after almost two years of divorce. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the applicants that merely because applicant No. 1 husband sought divorce, complainant is annoyed and as a counter blast, she fled instant complaint. Even otherwise, on merits, the allegations levelled against the applicants are vague, omnibus and general in nature. No specific details are given in the complaint, which is apparently belated one. Nature of mental and physical ill treatment is also not specified. The inordinate delay that has occurred in setting law in motion, also not being properly explained, there is a room to presume that it is concocted and afterthought. 14. In the landmark case i.e. State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , after conducting a detailed study of the situations as to when court may exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down guidelines and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to quash proceedings. 14. In the landmark case i.e. State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , after conducting a detailed study of the situations as to when court may exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down guidelines and circumstances under which it would be appropriate to quash proceedings. It would be profitable to reproduce the guidelines under which abuse of process of law could be prevented and the same are as under: “(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 FIR 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 FIR 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) 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.” 15. (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.” 15. Therefore, in the light of above discussions, we are of the firm opinion that present proceeding fled at the instance of respondent No. 2 is with an oblique motive. No fruitful purpose would be served if the applicants are made to face prosecution with such allegations. Therefore, in our view, allowing prosecution on the basis of such quality of material would definitely amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, applicants succeed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (I) The application is allowed. (II) Crime vide FIR No. 0087 of 2020 registered at Rahuri Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the consequential charge-sheet vide R.C.C. No. 151 of 2021, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, are quashed and set aside.