Hanumant S/O. Jagannath Bhosle vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 October, 2017

562.17WP.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 562 OF 2017

Hanumant S/o Jagganath Bhosle
Age : 40 years, Occ : Kirtankar,
R/o At Post. Alandi, Goaplpura,
Tq. Khed, Dist. Pune.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad.

2. Niranjana W/o Hanumant Bhosle
Age : 39 years, Occ : Kirtankar,
R/o C/o Bhaskar Changdev Shinde,
At Post. Alandi Devachi,
Bhagyashri Dharmashala,
Near Old Bridge, Tq. Khed,
Dist. Pune.
RESPONDENTS

Mr.Sharad S. Ambore, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mrs.P.V. Diggikar, APP for Respondent No.1 –
State.
Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.2.

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.

DATE : 09.10.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

Rule. Rule made returnable

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
2

forthwith, and heard finally with the consent

of the parties.

2. This Petition is filed with the

following prayer :-

“B) Quash and set aside the FIR No.0115

of 2016 dated 09.06.2016, registered

with Kalamb Police Station against the

petitioner to the extent of offence

punishable under Sections 323, 498-A,

504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and

for that purpose issue necessary orders;

3. The background facts for filing the

present Petition, as disclosed in the memo of

Petition, in brief are as under:

The petitioner has been arrayed as

accused in FIR No.0115/2011 by Respondent

No.2, with Kalamb Police Station on 9th June,

2016, for the offences punishable under

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
3

sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner

that, Respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife

of the petitioner, and their marriage was

solemnized on 20th May, 2011 according to

Hindu rituals. After marriage, respondent

no.2 cohabited with petitioner till 3rd

September, 2013. On 3rd September, 2013,

Respondent No.2, left the house of the

petitioner and started residing with another

person namely Bhaskar Shinde.

4. It is the case of the petitioner

that the petitioner got mentally disturbed

and consumed poison on 6th September, 2013

and thereafter was admitted in the Pimpri-

Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Hospital,

wherein he was treated till 9th September,

2013. It is the case of the petitioner that,

thereafter on 21st April, 2014 and 24th May,

2014, the petitioner sent notices through

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
4

advocate to Respondent No.2, and called upon

Respondent no.2 to resume cohabitation with

him. But Respondent no.2 neither replied the

said notices nor came for cohabitation. On

13th June, 2014 and 18th July, 2014, the

petitioner made applications to the Sub-

Inspector, Pune District Rural Police Station

making grievance that, his wife had left the

matrimonial house, and started residing with

another man i.e. Bhaskar Shinde.

5. It is further the case of the

petitioner that, on 24th August, 2015, he

filed Divorce Petition (No) 207 of 2015, in

the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Rajgurunagar under Section 13(1) of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On 10th

November, 2016, the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Khed-Rajgurunagar partly allowed

the application and directed him to pay

Rs.2500/- as monthly maintenance to

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
5

Respondent No.2 and Rs. 3000/- towards

litigation charges.

It is the case of the petitioner

that, on 29th February, 2016 respondent no.2

filed Miscellaneous Application no. 10 of

2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Kalamb under sections 3, 12, 17, 18,

19, 20, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act.

Respondent No.2 after service of

summons of divorce petition filed by the

petitioner, belatedly after five years of

marriage, on 9th June, 2016 she lodged the

present F.I.R. Hence this Petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that, even if the

allegations in the first information report

are taken at its face value and read in its

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
6

entirety, the alleged offences have not been

disclosed. In fact the petitioner is ready to

settle the dispute with Respondent No.2,

however, Respondent No.2 is not agreeable for

settlement. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner invites our attention to the

grounds taken in the Petition, annexures

thereto, and submits that, the Petition

deserves to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent – State relying

upon the contents of the first information

report and also the investigation papers,

submits that, there are serious allegations

of illtreatment and harassment and also there

was demand of Rs.7 Lakhs from the father of

the Respondent No.2 by the accused. The

allegations in the first information report

will have to be taken as it is and can only

be tested during the trial.

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::

562.17WP.odt
7

8. Learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.2, relying upon the averments

in the affidavit in reply and also

allegations in the first information report,

submits that, there was continuous

illtreatment and harassment at the hands of

the petitioner to Respondent No.2. As a

result of which, she was driven out of the

matrimonial house. There was demand of Rs. 7

Lakhs by the petitioner to the father of

Respondent No.2. The father of Respondent

No.2 collected amount from the relatives and

paid Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner so as to

purchase the 1.5 guntha land at Alandi.

However, the petitioner continued to illtreat

respondent no.2. Therefore, he submits that,

the Petition may be rejected.

9. We have given careful consideration

to the submissions advanced by the learned

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
8

counsel appearing for the parties. With their

able assistance, we have carefully perused

the grounds taken in the petition, annexures

thereto and reply filed by Respondent No.2 so

also the investigation papers. Upon careful

perusal of the allegations in the first

information report, there are serious

allegations in the first information report

against the accused that he used to suspect

the character/chastity of Respondent No.2,

and on that count used to illtreat and harass

her. There are specific allegations that, to

purchase the land at Alandi, the petitioner

demanded Rs. 7 Lakhs from the father of

Respondent No.2, and the father of Respondent

No.2 collected the amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs from

the relatives, and said amount was given to

the petitioner. Since there was demand of Rs.

7 Lakhs and the father of Respondent No.2

fulfilled demand of only Rs. 5 Lakhs, for

remaining amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs, the

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
9

petitioner used to illtreat and harass

Respondent No.2. As a result of continuous

illtreatment and harassment, on 3rd

September, 2013, Respondent No.2 was driven

out from the matrimonial house by the

petitioner.

10. Upon careful perusal of the contents

of the first information report and also

other documents placed on record, an

ingredients of the alleged offences have been

disclosed and consequently the alleged

offences needs further investigation.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of

Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s Monica and

others1 in para 11 of the judgment has held

that the facts, as alleged, in the complaint

will have to be proved which can be done only

in the course of a regular trial. The

1 (2014) 3 SCC 383

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
10

appreciation, in a summary manner, of the

averments made in a complaint petition or

F.I.R. would not be permissible at the stage

of quashing of F.I.R. and the facts stated

will have to be accepted as they appear on

the very face of it.

12. The Supreme Court in another

judgment in the case of Taramani Prakash V/s

State of M.P. and others2 has also taken a

view that, the question whether the

informant/complainant has infact been

harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter

of trial. In that view of the matter, we are

not inclined to entertain this Petition for

quashing of First Information Report. Hence

the Petition stands rejected.

The observations made hereinabove

are, prima facie, in nature and the rejection

2 2015 AIR (SC) (Supp) 704

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::
562.17WP.odt
11

of this Petition shall not be construed as an

impediment to the petitioner to avail of an

appropriate remedy as available in law, in

the event of filing charge-sheet by the

Investigating Officer.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
SGA

::: Uploaded on – 12/10/2017 14/10/2017 02:02:37 :::

Leave a Comment

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