Tushar Sudamrao Selukar And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 September, 2017

1 APPLN3551.2017.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3551 OF 2017

1. Tushar Sudamrao Selukar,
Age : 31 yrs., Occu. Service,

2. Maya Sudamrao Selukar,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Housewife,

Both Nos. 1 and 2 Residing at
Flat No. 603, Paras Basera, Poralwal Road,
Lohgaon, Pune.

3. Sneha Sachin Bavane,
Age : 29 years, Occu. Housewife,
Residing at Hanuman Nagar,
Plot No. 51, Medical Chowk,
Nagpur.

4. Shilpa Sanjay Mundalkar,
Age : 46 years, Occu. Service,

5. Sanjay Istari Mundalkar,
Age : 46 years, Occu. Service,

Both No. 4 and 5 Residing at
Plot No. 51, Hanuman Nagar,
Medical Chowk, Nagpur.

6. Sachin Gulabrao Bavne,
Age : 31 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Residing at Airforce Station,
Leh-Laddakh. … Applicants

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through CIDCO Police Station,
District Aurangabad.

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
2 APPLN3551.2017.odt

2. Rajeshri Tushar Selukar,
Age : 28 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Flat No. D-1, Plot No. 5,
Shivalaya Society, G-Sector,
CIDCO Town, Aurangabad-431 001. … Respondents

……….
Mr Pavan P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the applicants
Mrs P. V. Diggikar, APP for respondent/State
Ms Vanita S. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No. 2
………….

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 18.09.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. S. SHINDE, J.) :

1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the applicants

seeks permission to withdraw the application presented on behalf of

applicants No. 1 2.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant criminal application filed by applicants No. 1

2 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::

3 APPLN3551.2017.odt

4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission

stage.

5. This application is filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure with the following prayer.

B. The FIR No. 439/2017 registered with CIDCO Police
Station, Aurangabad, on 24.06.2017 punishable
under Section 498 (A), 506 34 of the I.P.C. and
Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act may kindly be
quashed and set aside.

6. Respondent No. 2 herein has filed FIR bearing

No.0439/2017 registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad

(City) on 24.06.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

7. It is alleged in the First Information Report that, the

marriage of respondent No. 2 – Rajeshri with applicant No. 1- Tushar

has been solemnized on 28.03.2016. Since applicant no. 1 is serving in

a private Company at Lohgaon (Pune), respondent No. 2 started

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
4 APPLN3551.2017.odt

cohabiting with applicant No. 1 at Pune. Applicant No. 2 used to reside

with the couple at the relevant time at Pune. It is further alleged that

the applicants herein started ill-treating and harassing respondent No.

2 on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.2.00 lakhs. It is

further alleged in the FIR that, applicant No. 1 used to ill-treat

respondent No. 2 and other co-accused used to instigate applicant No.

1. As a result of ill-treatment harassment, respondent No. 2 left the

matrimonial home at Pune on 16.04.2017 and came to Aurangabad to

reside with her parents. It is further alleged that respondent No. 2 had

approached the office of Police Commissioner, Aurangabad so as to

explore the possibility of bringing the accused across the table for

settlement. However, there was no settlement between the parties and

therefore, the First Information Report has been lodged at CIDCO

Police Station by respondent No. 2. Hence, this application has been

filed by the applicants i.e. an accused for quashing the FIR.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, the

allegations in the FIR are vague and omnibus. It is further submitted

that, there was no cause of action for filing the FIR at Aurangabad.

Cause of action to file said FIR arisen at Lohgaon, Pune. Learned

counsel has invited our attention to the copies of the documents placed

on record and submitted that, applicants No. 3 to 5 are residing at

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
5 APPLN3551.2017.odt

Nagpur and applicant No. 6 is serving in Air Force and posted at Leh-

Laddakh.

9. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State

submits that, the alleged offences have been disclosed and, therefore,

further investigation into the crime is necessary.

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits

that, on careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, alleged offences

are disclosed and, therefore, prayer of the applicants for quashing of

FIR may not be favourably considered. It is submitted that, since the

parents of respondent No. 2 are residing at Aurangabad, she has lodged

FIR in CIDCO Police Station at Aurangabad.

11. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties, and with their able assistance read the allegations in

the FIR, reply filed by respondent No. 2 and perused the investigation

papers.

12. On careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, it clearly

emerges that the ill-treatment and harassment alleged as against the

applicants by respondent No. 2 is when she was residing with

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
6 APPLN3551.2017.odt

applicants No. 1 and 2 at Pune. Nothing has been brought to the notice

of this Court by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that, part

of cause of action or any specific incident has ever taken place at

Aurangabad. So far as applicants No. 3 to 6 are concerned, there are

vague and general allegations. No any specific overt act against each of

the applicants has been mentioned in the FIR. It further appears that,

applicants No. 3 to 5 reside at Nagpur, which is more than 700 kms

away from Pune, as rightly submitted by the counsel appearing for the

applicants. The applicant no. 6 is serving in Air Force and posted at

Leh-Laddakh. Applicants No. 4 to 6 are distant relatives of applicant

No. 1.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal” [AIR 1992 SC 604] in para 108 held thus:

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 extra-ordinary 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

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
7 APPLN3551.2017.odt

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. 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.

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::

8 APPLN3551.2017.odt

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.

14. In the light of the discussion made herein above and

keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in the above

referred case, we are inclined to allow the application of the applicants

No. 3 to 6 and it is accordingly allowed.

15. First Information Report bearing C.R. No. 0439/2017

registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad (City) on

24.06.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w

34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, stands quashed and set aside to the extent of

applicants No. 3 to 6 herein.

16. So far as applicants No. 1 and 2 are concerned, in the light

of the discussion in para no. 12 herein above and since the entire cause

of action arose at Pune, FIR bearing No. 0439/2017 registered against

applicants No. 1 and 2 with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad (City)

on 24.06.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::
9 APPLN3551.2017.odt

Prohibition Act deserves to be transferred, and same is accordingly

transferred to Police Station, Lohgaon, Pune. Needless to observe that,

after transfer of an investigation and handing over the papers to the

Police Station at Lohgaon, Pune, said Police Station can cause further

investigation.

17. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to

costs.

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE

sgp

::: Uploaded on – 29/09/2017 03/10/2017 23:13:40 :::

Leave a Comment

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