IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.515/2019
(@ Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.180/2019)
Machindra & Anr. …Appellant(s)
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondent(s)
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 – complainant.
3. This Appeal, by way of Special Leave Petition, is filed against the impugned order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court rejected the appellants’ criminal application to quash criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 – complainant herein under the Domestic Signature Not Verified Violence Act and under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that they have harassed her for dowry.
4. This Court, on 03.01.2019, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as against the husband, issued limited notice to the respondents, and stayed further proceedings in Case RCC No. 152 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedpur District, Latur.
5. The counsel for the appellants contended that the allegations in the complaint are not substantiated and thus, the criminal proceedings emanating out of it deserve to be quashed. Further, it was contended that respondent no. 2 complainant’s marriage with the son of the appellants was a second marriage, and before entering into the said marriage, the complainant had not taken any decree of divorce from her previous husband. It was also alleged that respondent no. 2 complainant had made similar allegations against her first husband and his family.
6. We have perused the complaint filed by the complainant in which it has been stated that the father in law and mother in law have abused her verbally and demanded dowry. However, except these allegations in the complaint, there is no other substance in the complaint or any material evidence available on record to substantiate the same.
7. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that they are aged 66 and 60 years respectively.
8. Taking into consideration the above background of the case, and in view of nonavailability of any material to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where charges against the appellants, i.e., fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of respondent no. 2 complainant, can be quashed.
We therefore quash the proceedings against the appellants. Stay granted by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2019 stands vacated and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
9. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.
J (N.V. RAMANA)
J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
MARCH 15, 2019.
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 180/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-06-2018 in CRLA No. 1977/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad) MACHINDRA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA 177545/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA 177547/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 15-03-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Mr. Nishant, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Yatin M. Jagtap, Adv.
Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Shrikant R. Deshmukh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR