Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 75 (BOM)

Monika v. State of Maharashtra

2022-01-07

G.A.SANAP, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2022
JUDGMENT G.A. Sanap, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. On the report of the non-applicant No. 2/informant dated 17.02.2021 a crime bearing No. 148/2021 has been registered at Rajapeth, Police Station, Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 201, 212 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act) 2005. The applicant is arrayed as accused No. 1 in the Crime with ten other accused. The applicant and Informant/non-applicant No. 2 have made this joint application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed that in view of the settlement arrived at between them the First Information Report dated 17.02.2021 vide Crime No. 148/2021 for the above offences be quashed and set aside. The accused No. 2 is the sister of the applicant/accused No. 1. The boy who was kidnapped pursuant to the conspiracy by the accused is the grandson of the Jaswantraj Luniya. After death of first wife of Jaswantraj Luniya on 29.05.2010, Jaswantraj on 19.02.2011 married with the applicant/accused No. 1 at Ahmadnagar. After marriage, she came to reside with Jaswantraj Luniya at Amravati. The accused No. 2 who is the sister of the applicant and other relatives visited the house of Jaswantraj Luniya. The parents of the applicant/accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 are not financially well off. Jaswantraj is agriculturist as well as doing business. He is financially well off. 3. Vikas, Ankit and Mukesh are the married sons of Jaswantraj Luniya. Shraddha is a wife of Mukesh. The four years old kidnapped boy Nayan is the son of Mukesh and Shraddha. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that accused hatched the conspiracy to kidnap Nayan and extort the ransom from Jaswantraj Luniya and his family. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the accused persons took steps to take the conspiracy to its logical end from 10.02.2021. The accused No. 2 contacted accused No. 1 to take the location of the boy. The accused No. 1 being in conspiracy with the remaining accused provided the details and assured that she would facilitate the kidnapping. On 10.02.2021 they could not kidnap Nayan. On 11.02.2021 they made an attempt to kidnap the boy. However, the garden was crowded and therefore, they could not execute their plan. The accused No. 1 being in conspiracy with the remaining accused provided the details and assured that she would facilitate the kidnapping. On 10.02.2021 they could not kidnap Nayan. On 11.02.2021 they made an attempt to kidnap the boy. However, the garden was crowded and therefore, they could not execute their plan. Again they contacted the accused No. 1 on 16.02.2021. The accused No. 2 and other accused came to Amravati from Ahmadnager. They stayed at Amravati. They were in constant touch and contact with accused No. 1. Immediately before kidnapping, the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 had a telephonic talk on 17.02.2021. The accused No. 2 and juvenile Altamash Sheikh came near the garden on motor cycle. The Nayan was leaving the garden with the accused No. 1. At that time they kidnapped the boy and ran away. They took the boy to Ahmadnagar. They made a demand of ransom of Rs. 5 Crores to release the boy. They threatened to kill the boy, if the demand is not fulfilled. Two accused were taking the boy to Kalyan, however, on the way they were apprehended. The boy was removed from their custody. The investigation was conducted. Investigating Officer, on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation filed charge-sheet against all accused including applicant No. 1. 5. In this application, it is the case of the applicant that she is law abiding person. She has not committed any crime. She is wife of Jaswantraj Luniya. She is suffering from heart ailment. The police on the basis of mere suspicion arrested her in this crime. There is no evidence to establish her complicity in the commission of crime. Nayan is her grandson. She loves Nayan. Nayan cannot live without her. The applicant/accused No. 1 and the informant/non-applicant No. 2 have jointly filed this application and stated that they have settled their dispute. No offence has been committed by the applicant. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the First Information Report registered against the applicant No. 1. 6. We have heard Mrs. Sapna Jadhav, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned APP for the State at the time of admission. We have gone through the record and proceedings. 7. Therefore, they prayed for quashing the First Information Report registered against the applicant No. 1. 6. We have heard Mrs. Sapna Jadhav, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned APP for the State at the time of admission. We have gone through the record and proceedings. 7. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that Jaswantraj Luniya, his son Mukesh and wife of Mukesh Shraddha have filed supporting affidavits. It is submitted that merely on the basis of suspicion the applicant has been implicated in this case. Learned Advocate submitted that the suspicion was raised because of fact that accused No. 2 is the real sister of the applicant/accused No. 1. Learned Advocate submitted that considering the nature of role attributed to the applicant No. 1 and the settlement arrived at between her and the informant/non-applicant No. 2, this is a fit case to quash the First Information Report. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the non-applicant No. 2 reiterated the submission advanced by learned Advocate for the applicant. 9. Shri S.S. Doifode, learned APP for the non-applicant No. 1/State submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer for quashing the First Information Report on the ground of settlement cannot be accepted. Learned APP took us through the relevant record and submitted that conspiracy was hatched to kidnap Nayan for ransom from his grandfather. Learned APP submitted that applicant has played a crucial role by providing the information with regard to location and where about of Nayan to accused No. 2 from time to time. Learned APP submitted that without active cooperation of the applicant, the remaining accused could not have taken the conspiracy to its logical end. There is sufficient evidence to reject the application. It is submitted that grant of this application in such serious crime and in the facts and circumstances would weaken the case of the prosecution against the remaining accused. 10. It is undisputed that informant and the applicant have jointly prayed for quashing of the First Information Report. Non-applicant No. 2 has signed the application. It is submitted that grant of this application in such serious crime and in the facts and circumstances would weaken the case of the prosecution against the remaining accused. 10. It is undisputed that informant and the applicant have jointly prayed for quashing of the First Information Report. Non-applicant No. 2 has signed the application. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that in view of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the fit cases such a settlement can be accepted and the proceedings can be quashed by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. We may usefully refer to the decisions in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (2019) 5 SCC 688 , Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat 2017 ALL Mr. (Cri) 4438 (SC) and ABC Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2021 ALL Mr. (Cri) 4603. The legal position which can be culled out is that prayer for quashing on the ground of settlement cannot be made as a matter of right. It is held that while considering such application, the Court has to bear in mind the facts and circumstances of each case. It is held that the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 in the cases involving heinous and serious offences. 11. It is pertinent to note that in this case, the kidnapped boy proved to be fortunate. The conspiracy to get ransom of Rs. 5 Crores could not get materialized due to timely reporting of the matter to the police and due diligence displayed by the police. The plan of the accused persons to their utter misfortune failed. The accused had planned to take the boy to Kalyan. If the demand for ransom had not been met then after taking the boy to kalyan they would have killed him. Fortunately for the boy their plan failed, therefore, he is surviving today. The record shows that the remaining accused came to Amravati for commission of crime whereas the applicant/accused No. 1 was residing with the family at Amravati. 12. Perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the conspiracy was hatched meticulously. Fortunately for the boy their plan failed, therefore, he is surviving today. The record shows that the remaining accused came to Amravati for commission of crime whereas the applicant/accused No. 1 was residing with the family at Amravati. 12. Perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the conspiracy was hatched meticulously. There is evidence in the form of CDR of the mobile phone of the applicant that she was in the constant contact with the accused No. 2, who is her sister. In this case, in the absence of the active support and cooperation of the accused No. 1, the remaining accused would not have kidnapped Nayan. The police papers would show that as per their plan, they took the boy to Ahmadnagar and handed over the custody of the same to one lady. Thereafter, they made phone call at the house of Jaswantraj Luniya and demanded ransom of Rs. 5 Crores. They threatened that Jastwantraj should not inform the police and if such information is given and the amount is not paid, then the boy would be killed by cutting him into pieces. In our view, in the facts and circumstances by applying any standard, this crime could not be said to be a minor crime. In such a heinous crime, the Court is required to be very circumspect and slow in quashing the First Information Report. 13. The bail application made by the applicant has been rejected on 07.08.2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati took note of role attributed to the applicant and the serious nature of crime while rejecting the bail application. It is apparent on the face of record that after rejection of bail application, the family members seems to have taken pity on the applicant and tried to support the applicant. The perusal of the charge-sheet would show that their statements were recorded. In our view, even the support extended by Jaswantraj Luniya, his son and daughter in law to the applicant in this proceedings at this stage would be of no help and assistance. In our view, this is not a fit case to quash the First Information Report even on the ground of settlement. Therefore, we proceed to pass to following order. Order The Criminal Application No. 1337/2021 is rejected. Rule is discharged.