IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Criminal Application No. 251 of 2014
Decided On: 14.01.2015
Gopal and Ors.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.
- Heard. Admit.
- Heard finally by consent.
- By this application, a field have sought quashing of a sequence antiquated 22.2.2012 arising routine opposite them for a offences punishable underneath Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 review with Section 34 of a Indian Penal Code and also quashing of a censure filed opposite them by respondent No. 2.
- According to a schooled warn for a applicants, there is not even a wheeze of allegations done opposite both these indicted forming essential mixture of offences punishable underneath Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 of a Indian Penal Code. In support, he has taken me by a complaint, duplicate of that has been filed on record as Annexure-2. Learned warn for a Non-applicant No. 2 states that a field should not bashful divided from a hearing and whatever they are submitting now can be submitted by them on merits of a box and, therefore, it would be beforehand for this Court to concede this petition. He also submits that a allegations done opposite both a applicants, as can be seen from a paragraphs 4, 13 and 14 in a censure are sufficient to infer that prima facie box for a purported offences has been done out opposite both a applicants.
- Learned A.P.P. for a Non-applicant No. 1/State submits that an suitable sequence might be upheld in this case.
- Upon clever hearing of a censure filed by a Non-applicant No. 2 opposite a field and other persons, we find that so distant as benefaction field are concerned, there is not even a singular claim which, if taken during face value would consecrate any of a offences purported opposite these applicants. These allegations conjunction uncover any prima facie cruelty carrying been meted out by a field to Non-applicant No. 2 nor any intrigue or rapist crack of trust carrying been prima facie committed in honour of profitable articles, that a Non-applicant No. 2 says to be a stridhan.
- In divide 4 of a complaint, there is a ubiquitous claim that a money and gifts that a respondent No. 2 and indicted No. 1-Vaibhav had perceived during matrimony were kept during a matrimonial home by all a indicted persons including a applicant No. 1, who is indicted No. 7, being a go-between for a matrimony between a respondent No. 2 and indicted No. 1-Vaibhav; and a applicant No. 2, who is indicted No. 4, being a sister in law of a complainant-Non-applicant No. 2. It is an certified position that both these field were not partial of matrimonial home of a indicted No. 1 and Non-applicant No. 2. Therefore, no offences relating to intrigue and rapist crack of trust punishable underneath Sections 417 and 406 would be prima facie done out opposite these applicants. Besides, there is also no claim in divide 4 that a Non-applicant No. 2 during any indicate of time demanded lapse of a Stridhan articles to her from those indicted persons who are staying in her matrimonial home.
- In divide 13 of a complaint, what is settled is that there was a assembly on 18.5.2010 during a chateau of a applicant No. 2 in that meeting, applicant No. 2, together with indicted No. 1-Vaibhav and indicted No. 3-Anuradha leveled several fake and groundless allegations opposite a Non-applicant No. 2 in a participation of remaining indicted persons. However, what allegations were leveled opposite her, has not been mentioned by a Non-applicant No. 2. On a basement of matter that fake and groundless allegations have been done by one chairman opposite another, corruption of cruelty is not prima facie constituted. Making of such a matter usually discloses a opinion of it’s builder and, therefore, a complainant, who wishes to infer her box of cruelty, contingency mention a allegations in a censure so as to capacitate a other side to accommodate them reasonably and also capacitate a Court to decide, as to either or not these allegations unequivocally consecrate in law a corruption of cruelty, that is not a box here. The statements so done in divide 13, therefore, can't be deliberate to be sufficient for prima facie forming corruption punishable underneath Section 498-A of a Indian Penal Code. The matter in divide 13 attributed to applicant No. 1 that is to a outcome that he has suggested Non-applicant No. 2 to mend her ways and urge herself, that is zero though giving of an aged advice, poorly or righteously and it can't volume to cruelty.
- In divide 14 of a complaint, it is purported that a indicted Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 forced a complainant to apologize and make a honest guarantee that a complainant shall not discuss on “ORKUT”, a amicable networking site. we do not consider that even this claim can volume to nuisance within a definition of Section 498-A of a Indian Penal Code as it has no propinquity to pushing a complainant into such function as to discredit her life or means damage to herself. This claim also does not have any propinquity to coercing of a complainant into assembly any wrong direct for any skill or profitable security. On a contrary, spending prolonged time on amicable networking site such as “ORKUT” or “FACEBOOK” by a chairman can be noticed as mental nuisance by another associate and, therefore, if a associate is suggested to spend detriment time on a amicable networking site or terminate from visiting it, a recommendation is able as being seen as done with a perspective to keep a matrimony total and not otherwise.
- Except a above referred allegations, there are no other allegations done opposite both a field and schooled warn for a Non-applicant No. 2-complainant could also not uncover to me any other allegations solely for a afore settled allegations. we have already found that a afore settled allegations do not prima facie consecrate any of a offences punishable underneath Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 of a Indian Penal Code. Therefore, no routine for these offences could have been released opposite both these applicants. Although schooled Magistrate, while arising routine has celebrated in a sequence that he has review a complaint, a above referred contention would uncover a position to be otherwise. He does not seem to have review a censure properly. The allegations contained in a complaint, so distant as benefaction field are concerned, do not make out any box and, therefore, conflicting with schooled warn for a Non-applicant No. 2, we find that job on a field to face a distress of hearing in such a conditions would volume to grave misapplication to a applicants. The complaint, therefore, as opposite both a field deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, a focus is allowed.
- The impugned sequence of distribution of routine underneath Sections 498-A, 406 and 417 of a Indian Penal Code opposite a field is hereby quashed and set aside.
- The censure as opposite both a field also stands dismissed. The hearing as opposite remaining indicted persons, however, shall ensue serve in suitability with law.