Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh And … vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 3 August, 2017

1 Cr WP 464 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Writ Petition No. 464 of 2007

1) Dr. Suryakant Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 34 years,
Occupation: Service Medical Officer,
R/o Civil Hospital Parbhani,
C/o Shree Orthopaedics Hospital,
Wasmat Road, In front of
Vasantrao Naik Statue Parbhani,
District Parbhani.

2) Anandrao Motiram Deshmukh,
Age 72 years,
Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
District Beed.

3) Prabhawati Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 65 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
District Beed.

4) Ashok Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 45 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o At Post Ahmedpur,
District Latur.

5) Tanaji Anandrao Deshmukh,
Age 35 years,
Occupation: Service,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai,
Taluka Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.

6) Chandrakala Jeevanrao Vaidya,
Age 42 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Ghatnandur, Taluka Ambejogai
District Beed. .. Petitioners.

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::
2 Cr WP 464 of 2007

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Jilha Peth Police
Station, Jalgaon.

2) Chhaya Suryakant Deshmukh,
Age 38 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o c/o Machindra Chokha
Nagtilak, Kurwel Road,
In front of New M.S.E.B.
At Post Taluka Mohol,
Taluka Solapur,
District Solapur. .. Respondents.

—-
Shri. Pramod P. Dhorde, Advocate, for petitioners.

Shri. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.

Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
—-

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Date : 3 AUGUST 2017

JUDGMENT (By T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) The petition is filed for relief of quashment of

the FIR registered at CR No.203/2006 registered in Zilla

Peth Police Station Jalgaon and also for the quashment of

the proceeding which is filed in the said crime. Both the

sides are heard.

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::

3 Cr WP 464 of 2007

2) Respondent No.2, original complainant, is the

wife of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the

parents of the petitioner No.1. During pendency of the

present proceeding petitioner No.2 died. Petitioner Nos.4

and 5 are brothers of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6

is married daughter of petitioner No.2.

3) Marriage of the first informant took place with

petitioner No.1 prior to 1999. She was working as Nurse

in one hospital where petitioner No.1 was working as

Medical Officer. It is contended that it was her inter

caste marriage and so the parents and other relatives of

petitioner No.1 were not happy with the marriage. It is

her contention that due to the circumstance that the first

informant was not from the caste of the petitioners, ill

treatment was given to her. Allegations are made that the

petitioners were asking her to bring money. It is her

contention that due to the harassment given to her she

started living separate from the petitioners from June

1999 and she was living with her brother. FIR was given

on 8-10-2006 and crime is registered for offence under

section 498-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code.

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::

4 Cr WP 464 of 2007

4) It is the case of the petitioners that the first

informant was already married and this circumstance was

concealed from petitioner No.1. It is contended that when

the petitioners came to know about this fact, the first

informant returned to her parents house. It is contended

that only to extract money the first informant has made

false allegations. It is contended that petitioner No.1 has

filed divorce petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage

Act and only after that the first informant approached

police and the FIR was given very late. It is contended

that petitioners Nos.2 to 6 were living separate from

petitioner No.1 and there was no occasion or opportunity

for them to give ill-treatment to the first informant.

5) The submissions made show that it is not

disputed that the first informant had started living

separate from petitioner No.1 from June 1999. Copy of

the Hindu Marriage Petition filed by petitioner No.1 is

produced on the record and it shows that divorce

proceeding was filed on 13-6-2006. The FIR came to be

given on 8-10-2006. The contentions made in the present

petition are made in the Hindu Marriage Petition also.

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:26 :::

5 Cr WP 464 of 2007

6) There is virtually no explanation with the first

informant as to why she did not approach police for about

7 years if she was deserted in the year 1999. There is

clear possibility that only after filing of divorce proceeding

she filed the report and the intention behind the report is

to pressurise the husband and other relatives so that they

come to some settlement as per her desire. The

circumstance that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are living separate

from petitioner No.1 but they are mentioned as accused in

the FIR shows that she is interested only in pressurizing

the husband and his relatives.

7) Recently, In the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State

of U.P. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine SC 821 the Apex

Court has given directions to prevent misuse of the

provision of section 498-A of the Indian Petition Code.

Prior to that in the case reported as 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri)

488 (Bhushan Kumar Meen v. State of Punjab) the Apex

Court had observed that if prima facie case is not made

out for offence under section 498-A IPC the FIR and the

case itself is liable to be quashed. Similar observations

are made in AIR 2013 SC 181 (Geeta Mehrotra v. State

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:27 :::
6 Cr WP 464 of 2007

of U.P.). It is further laid down that when there are vague

allegations the proceeding and the FIR need to be

quashed.

8) In the present matter also the contents of the

FIR show that very vague allegations are made against all

the petitioners. It can be said that in stead of filing written

statement in the divorce proceeding she preferred to go to

police. As there was no specific incident with her she

made vague allegations for registration of crime. In view

of these circumstances this Court holds that it will be

misuse of provision of section 498A of the IPC and process

of law if the proceeding is allowed to continue.

9) In the result, the petition is allowed. The F.I.R.

and the subsequent proceedings filed in the said crime are

quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in those terms.

                    Sd/-                              Sd/-
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

rsl

::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 08/08/2017 02:39:27 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *