Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 98 (BOM)

Jagdish v. State of Maharashtra

2022-01-11

G.A.SANAP, V.M.DESHPANDE

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. We have heard Mr. Shekhar S. Dhengale, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant no. 1/State and Ms. Rani Nitnaware, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2/complainant, in extenso. We have also perused the respective replies filed by the State as well as non-applicant no. 2. 3. By filing the present proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are praying for quashing of the First Information Report No. 707/2021, registered with Police Station, Awadhutwadi, Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The crime was registered in view of the complaint lodged by non-applicant no. 2. It is an admitted fact before the Court that non-applicant no. 2 was married with Priyesh Jaiswal on 01.07.2017. Priyesh Jaiswal is the son of applicant no. 1 Jagdish, real brother of applicant no. 3 Preeti and nephew of applicant no. 2 Kusum Jaiswal. 5. Mr. Dhengale, learned counsel for the applicants also does not dispute the relationship of the non-applicant no. 2 with the applicants. Therefore, they are the relatives of non-applicant no. 2. As such, even it is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC can be invoked at the behest of non-applicant no. 2. 6. The allegations made in the first information report against applicant no. 1 are very serious. Perusal of the first information report would show that father-in-law/applicant no. 1 used to abuse his daughter-in-law/non-applicant no. 2 in very filthy language and used to beat her. The report further points out that in absence of her husband, applicant no. 1/father-in-law caught hold the hand of the complainant with bad motive and used to stare her with ill intention. It is also stated in the first information report that when the complainant used to be alone in the house and she was in the process of changing her clothes, that time applicant no. 1 used to take entry in the said room and used to touch her body and used to drag her saree. 7. It is also stated in the first information report that when the complainant used to be alone in the house and she was in the process of changing her clothes, that time applicant no. 1 used to take entry in the said room and used to touch her body and used to drag her saree. 7. Insofar as these allegations are concerned, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, these are nothing but sheer falsehood. He submits that in any event, when a lady wants to change her clothes, normally she will bolt the door from inside. Therefore, it was really impossible for applicant no. 1 to take entry inside the room. We are afraid to accept this submission because at the relevant time, as to whether the door was bolted from inside or not?; whether, though the door was bolted from inside, anyhow the applicant no. 1 took entry inside the room ?, is a matter of evidence and surely that cannot be appreciated at this stage of quashing of the first information report, especially when the investigation is in progress and even the charge-sheet is not filed. 8. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicant no. 1/father-in-law is residing separately and in that behalf he filed rent note on record to show that he is residing separately. He also invited our attention to exchange of notices in between the parties to point out different addresses of applicant no. 1. 9. This particular submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants is in the nature of defence and the defence can be tested only at the time of the trial and it cannot be considered at this stage. 10. Insofar as the allegations made against applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, though the first information report state that these two ladies used to instigate the husband of applicant no. 2 to beat her, in our view, fullest opportunity will have to be given to the prosecution to conduct in-depth investigation in that behalf also. 11. The first information report levels and makes specific allegation against all the applicants. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are accepted, he wish to submit before the Court that at this stage alone, the Court should appreciate and evaluate the truthfulness and otherwise of the statements of the complainant. 11. The first information report levels and makes specific allegation against all the applicants. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are accepted, he wish to submit before the Court that at this stage alone, the Court should appreciate and evaluate the truthfulness and otherwise of the statements of the complainant. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can be tested during the course of the trial. In that view of the matter, in our view, unless fullest opportunity is given to the prosecution to conduct the investigation, file the charge-sheet and perform full fledged trial to prove the guilt of the applicants, at this stage, the case of the applicants cannot be considered. 12. Resultantly, the criminal application is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.