{"id":3337,"date":"2014-08-09T19:14:04","date_gmt":"2014-08-09T13:44:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=3337"},"modified":"2014-08-19T17:21:21","modified_gmt":"2014-08-19T11:51:21","slug":"312-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/312-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"No Arrest in 498A – Circular Reffered"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<\/strong><\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/p>\n

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.312 OF 2014<\/p>\n

Vinod Rajkrishan Kaushik & ors. … Petitioners.
\nVersus
\nThe State of Maharashtra. … Respondents.<\/p>\n

Mr. A.K. Padhy i\/b. A.K. Padhy & Co. advocate for petitioners.
\nMr. S.R. Shinde, APP for State.<\/p>\n

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J
\nDATE : JULY 25, 2014
\nP.C.:<\/p>\n

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned APP for State.<\/p>\n

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.<\/p>\n

3 The Petitioner herein challenges correctness and validity of the Order dated 16\/11\/2011 passed by the 19th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune thereby rejecting the application below Exh. 26 filed by the present petitioners seeking discharge as well as the order dated 30th November, 2013 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 169 of 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. <\/p>\n

4 Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this Writ Petition are as follows :<\/p>\n

The Petitioner No. 3 herein who happens to be the son of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 got married to the complainant Madhvika on 26\/1\/2008. The Petitioner No. 3 as well as his wife were working as Software Engineers at Pune. <\/p>\n

5 On 17th June, 2008 an occurrence report was filed at Chaturshrungi Police Station, Pune by the wife of the petitioner No. 3 alleging therein that there was an altercation between her and Petitioner No. 3. The Petitioner No. 3 has assaulted the first informant due to which she sustained injuries on her face, back and hands. The informant had telephonically informed her father about the assault. At the request of her father, her friend Monika Agnihotri had visited her house. The Petitioner No. 3 had not allowed her friend Monika Agnihotri to enter inside their flat and therefore, she was constrained to leave from door step itself. On 17\/6\/2008 uncle and brother of the informant came to Pune and tried to pacify the couple. They had also contacted with the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioners had insisted upon the relatives to convince the informant to avail loan and give the said amount to them. The efforts to convince the informant had failed and thereafter, she had lodged the report at Chaturshrungi Police Station. Since the offence alleged appeared to be in the nature of non\u00adcognizable offence, the police had recorded occurrence report. <\/p>\n

6 After reaching Ujjain the first informant lodged a detailed first information report as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 18th June, 2008 wherein she had narrated the same incident. Offence was registered against the accused persons and the informant was sent for medical examination. The injury certificate indicates that there were bruises on her left eye, right arm, left scapular area and contusion over left thigh. Since the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of Pune, Ujjain Police have transferred the case for further investigation to Chaturshrungi Police Station. On receipt of the first information report, Crime No. 297 of 2008 is registered against the present petitioners for offence punishable under Section 498A, 506, 406 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 4\/7\/2008. <\/p>\n

7 The investigation was set in motion. Charge\u00adsheet was filed for the alleged offence. It had transpired in the course of the investigation that the valuables and other articles belonging to the first informant were in the custody of the accused persons and hence, Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was added.<\/p>\n

8 The Petitioners then filed application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Magistrate had considered the papers of investigation and the submissions advanced across the bar and had rejected the said application. According to the learned Magistrate, the prosecution ought to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence as prima facie case was made out. The learned Magistrate had also rightly considered that in the eventuality that the accused persons are discharged at prima face stage, it would amount to deciding the matter without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence.<\/p>\n

9 Being aggrieved by the said order the Petitioners herein had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 169 of 2012. The learned Sessions Court had perused the compilation of the charge\u00adsheet which included the injury certificate of the first informant. The Sessions Court had also taken into consideration mandate engrafted under Section 239 of the Code which contemplated that only upon arriving at a conclusion that the charge\u00adsheet against the accused is groundless, only then the accused are entitled to be discharged. Upon perusal of the charge\u00adsheet, the Sessions Court had formed an opinion that although the occurrence report dated 17th June, 2008 does not depict the entire facts and allegations, it definitely reflects that the Petitioner No. 3 had assaulted the informant by hands in the intervening night of 15th June, 2008 and 16th June, 2008. It had also arrived at a conclusion that the statements of the witnesses corroborated the contents of the FIR. The statement of Monika Agnihotri revealed that she had visited the house of the informant and was restrained by the Petitioner No. 3 from meeting the informant. The Sessions Court had therefore upheld the order passed by the Magistrate and had refused to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate and the Revision Application was dismissed. Hence, this Writ Petition. <\/p>\n

10 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that in fact, it was mandatory upon the learned Magistrate to discharge the Petitioners on the ground that framing of the charge would be futile. It was apparent that the prosecution was initiated only to harass the Petitioners. Learned Counsel has argued that omnibus allegations are levelled against the Petitioners and from bare perusal of the FIR, it would be apparent that the first informant would not be able to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is argued that the marriage of the Petitioner No. 3 and the informant was performed without accepting any dowry. It was further argued that in the application for bail it was admitted that the parents of the informant had not given any dowry. It is further argued that while considering the application seeking bail, the Petitioner No. 3 has filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights in the court of Delhi. It is further argued that Pune police had not denied to register offence and yet it was not registered since no cognisable offence was made out at that stage. That the complainant had denied medical examination at Pune, but preferred to subject herself for medical examination after two days. Hence, such evidence in the form of injury certificate is manipulated. At the time of deciding the application seeking discharge, according to the learned Counsel it was incumbent upon the Court to consider the defence of the accused also. It is mentioned in the synopsis to the Petition that on 15th December, 2010, Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the complainant. Much stress is laid upon the injury certificate which according to the learned Counsel is a concocted document. <\/p>\n

11 It is pertinent to note that in paragraph\u00ad19 of the Petition it is contended that a mere suggestion to the highly paid newly couple to plan to buy a house in Delhi by taking home loan jointly, can never be treated as a demand of dowry or torture for taking a loan of Rs. 30 Lakhs for buying a house, as is evident from the contents of the email Subject : House in Omaxe Housing. It is specifically contended that in the first occurrence report there is no averment in respect of dowry, harassment or breach of trust and the same was concocted at Indore. <\/p>\n

12 It is a matter of record that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not residing under the same roof alongwith the Petitioner No. 3 and the first informant. They were residing at Noida. It is the allegation that they used to visit Pune and at that time, there was harassment. It is pertinent to note that in the report dated 17\/6\/2008 there was no allegation against the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Hence, the contention that the learned Magistrate has not considered the discharge application in its proper perspective needs to be upheld. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 deserves to be discharged on the ground that they were living separately. There are no allegations against them in the first report. When the complainant returned to Ujjain, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not at Pune. The Petitioner No. 3 had restrained Monika Agnihotri from meeting the complainant. It is admitted by the Petitioners that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had only suggested the couple to purchase a house at Delhi and they had not demanded dowry for their own benefit. However, the case of the Petitioner No. 3 would have to be considered on all together different ground. It is pertinent to note that the Family Court at Ujjain passed decree of divorce in favour of the complainant in a Divorce Petition filed by her. <\/p>\n

13\u00a0The\u00a0learned\u00a0Counsel\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0has\u00a0rightly\u00a0placed\u00a0reliance\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0Judgment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Priti\u00a0Gupta\u00a0&\u00a0anr.\u00a0v\/s.\u00a0State\u00a0of\u00a0Jharkhand\u00a0&\u00a0anr.\u00a0reported\u00a0in\u00a0AIR\u00a02010\u00a0SC\u00a03363\u00a0wherein\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0has\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201ca\u00a0serious\u00a0relook\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0entire\u00a0provision\u00a0is\u00a0warranted\u00a0by\u00a0the
\nlegislation.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0a\u00a0matter\u00a0of\u00a0common\u00a0knowledge\u00a0that
\nexaggerated\u00a0versions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0incident\u00a0are\u00a0reflected\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0large
\nnumber\u00a0of\u00a0complaints.\u00a0The\u00a0tendency\u00a0of\u00a0over\u00a0implication\u00a0is\u00a0also
\nreflected\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0very\u00a0large\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0cases.\u00a0
\nThe\u00a0criminal\u00a0trials\u00a0lead\u00a0to\u00a0immense\u00a0sufferings\u00a0for\u00a0all
\nconcerned.\u00a0Even\u00a0ultimate\u00a0acquittal\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0trial\u00a0may\u00a0also\u00a0not\u00a0be
\nable\u00a0to\u00a0wipe\u00a0out\u00a0the\u00a0deep\u00a0scars\u00a0of\u00a0suffering\u00a0of\u00a0ignominy.
\nUnfortunately\u00a0a\u00a0large\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0these\u00a0complaints\u00a0have\u00a0not\u00a0only
\nflooded\u00a0the\u00a0courts\u00a0but\u00a0also\u00a0have\u00a0led\u00a0to\u00a0enormous\u00a0social\u00a0unrest
\naffecting\u00a0peace,\u00a0harmony\u00a0and\u00a0happiness\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0society.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0high
\ntime\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0legislature\u00a0must\u00a0take\u00a0into\u00a0consideration\u00a0the
\npragmatic\u00a0realities\u00a0and\u00a0make\u00a0suitable\u00a0changes\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0existing
\nlaw.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0imperative\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0legislature\u00a0to\u00a0take\u00a0into\u00a0consideration
\nthe\u00a0informed\u00a0public\u00a0opinion\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0pragmatic\u00a0realities\u00a0in
\nconsideration\u00a0and\u00a0make\u00a0necessary\u00a0changes\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0relevant
\nprovisions\u00a0of\u00a0law.\u201d
\nHence,\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0had\u00a0circulated\u00a0the\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Judgment\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Law\u00a0Commission\u00a0and\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Union\u00a0Law\u00a0Secretary,\u00a0Government\u00a0of\u00a0India.<\/p>\n

14\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0an\u00a0admitted\u00a0position\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0had\u00a0got\u00a0married\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0informant\u00a0only\u00a0in\u00a0January,\u00a02008.\u00a0\u00a0They\u00a0had\u00a0lived\u00a0together\u00a0for\u00a0hardly\u00a0five\u00a0months\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0had\u00a0withdrawn\u00a0herself\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0matrimonial\u00a0house.\u00a0
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n

15\u00a0Section\u00a0498A\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Indian\u00a0Penal\u00a0Code\u00a0\u00a0reads\u00a0thus\u00a0:
\n\u201c498A.\u00a0Husband\u00a0or\u00a0relative\u00a0of\u00a0husband\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0woman\u00a0subjecting
\nher\u00a0to\u00a0cruelty.\u2014Whoever,\u00a0being\u00a0the\u00a0husband\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0relative\u00a0of
\nthe\u00a0husband\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0woman,\u00a0subjects\u00a0such\u00a0woman\u00a0to\u00a0cruelty\u00a0shall
\nbe\u00a0punished\u00a0with\u00a0imprisonment\u00a0for\u00a0a\u00a0term\u00a0which\u00a0may\u00a0extend\u00a0to
\nthree\u00a0years\u00a0and\u00a0shall\u00a0also\u00a0be\u00a0liable\u00a0to\u00a0fine.\u00a0Explanation.\u2014For
\nthe\u00a0purpose\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0section,\u00a0\u201ccruelty\u201d\u00a0means\u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0any\u00a0wilful\u00a0conduct\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0nature\u00a0as\u00a0is\u00a0likely\u00a0to\u00a0drive\u00a0the\u00a0woman\u00a0to\u00a0commit\u00a0suicide\u00a0or\u00a0to\u00a0cause\u00a0grave\u00a0injury\u00a0or\u00a0danger\u00a0to\u00a0life,\u00a0limb\u00a0or\u00a0health\u00a0(whether\u00a0mental\u00a0or\u00a0physical)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0woman;\u00a0or\u00a0<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0harassment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0woman\u00a0where\u00a0such\u00a0harassment\u00a0is\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0view\u00a0to\u00a0coercing\u00a0her\u00a0or\u00a0any\u00a0person\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0her\u00a0to\u00a0meet\u00a0any\u00a0unlawful\u00a0demand\u00a0for\u00a0any\u00a0property\u00a0or\u00a0valuable\u00a0security\u00a0or\u00a0is\u00a0on\u00a0account\u00a0of\u00a0failure\u00a0by\u00a0her\u00a0or\u00a0any\u00a0person\u00a0related\u00a0to\u00a0her\u00a0to\u00a0meet\u00a0such\u00a0demand.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Section\u00a0498A\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Indian\u00a0Penal\u00a0Code\u00a0contemplates\u00a0harassment\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0nature\u00a0which\u00a0would\u00a0coerce\u00a0the\u00a0wife\u00a0or\u00a0her\u00a0relatives\u00a0to\u00a0meet\u00a0any\u00a0unlawful\u00a0demand\u00a0for\u00a0any\u00a0property\u00a0or\u00a0valuable\u00a0security\u00a0or\u00a0to\u00a0drive\u00a0the\u00a0woman\u00a0to\u00a0commit\u00a0suicide\u00a0or\u00a0to\u00a0cause\u00a0gave\u00a0injury\u00a0or\u00a0danger\u00a0to\u00a0life,\u00a0limb\u00a0or\u00a0health\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0woman.\u00a0Recitals\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0information\u00a0report\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case\u00a0only\u00a0disclose\u00a0a\u00a0stray\u00a0incident\u00a0which\u00a0had\u00a0occurred\u00a0due\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0verbal\u00a0altercation\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0husband\u00a0and\u00a0wife\u00a0which\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0natural\u00a0affair\u00a0between\u00a0most\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0couples.\u00a0Difference\u00a0of\u00a0opinion\u00a0or\u00a0verbal\u00a0altercation\u00a0on\u00a0a\u00a0particular\u00a0issue\u00a0or\u00a0a\u00a0solitary\u00a0incident\u00a0which\u00a0may\u00a0temporarily\u00a0hamper\u00a0the\u00a0harmony\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0marriage\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0termed\u00a0as\u00a0harassment\u00a0or\u00a0cruelty.\u00a0
\n\u00a016\u00a0Black’s\u00a0Law\u00a0Dictionary\u00a0defines\u00a0\u201charassment\u201d\u00a0as\u00a0\u201cWords,\u00a0conduct,\u00a0or\u00a0action\u00a0(usually\u00a0repeated\u00a0or\u00a0persistent)\u00a0that\u00a0being\u00a0directed\u00a0at\u00a0a\u00a0specific\u00a0person,\u00a0annoys,\u00a0alarms\u00a0or\u00a0causes\u00a0substantial\u00a0emotional\u00a0distress\u00a0in\u00a0that\u00a0person\u00a0and\u00a0serves\u00a0no\u00a0legitimate\u00a0purpose.\u201d\u00a0Emphasis\u00a0is\u00a0being\u00a0laid\u00a0upon\u00a0\u201cusually,\u00a0repeated\u00a0or\u00a0persistent\u201d.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0it\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0said\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0was\u00a0persistent\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0conduct\u00a0so\u00a0much\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0can\u00a0cause\u00a0harassment\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0informant.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0very\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0she\u00a0had\u00a0denied\u00a0to\u00a0subject\u00a0herself\u00a0to\u00a0medical\u00a0examination\u00a0at\u00a0Pune\u00a0would\u00a0show\u00a0that\u00a0she\u00a0had\u00a0no\u00a0apparent\u00a0injuries.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0police\u00a0officer\u00a0at\u00a0Chaturshrungi\u00a0Police\u00a0Station\u00a0would\u00a0have\u00a0definitely\u00a0noticed\u00a0the\u00a0bruises\u00a0if\u00a0it\u00a0appeared\u00a0on\u00a0\u00a0her\u00a0eyes\u00a0and\u00a0other\u00a0features.\u00a0Therefore,\u00a0there\u00a0creeps\u00a0doubt\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0injury\u00a0certificate\u00a0could\u00a0be\u00a0concocted\u00a0at\u00a0a\u00a0place\u00a0where\u00a0her\u00a0parents\u00a0lived.\u00a0<\/p>\n

17\u00a0Cruelty\u00a0could\u00a0be\u00a0defined\u00a0as\u00a0a\u00a0bodily\u00a0harm\u00a0or\u00a0a\u00a0reasonable\u00a0apprehension\u00a0of\u00a0bodily\u00a0harm\u00a0which\u00a0endangers\u00a0life,\u00a0limb\u00a0or\u00a0health.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0Court\u00a0is\u00a0doubtful\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0injuries\u00a0were\u00a0really\u00a0caused\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0place\u00a0where\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0information\u00a0report\u00a0was\u00a0lodged.\u00a0In\u00a0a\u00a0marriage\u00a0of\u00a0long\u00a0duration\u00a0it\u00a0becomes\u00a0necessary\u00a0to\u00a0determine\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0cruelty\u00a0is\u00a0for\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0period\u00a0which\u00a0would\u00a0warrant\u00a0initiation\u00a0of\u00a0proceedings\u00a0for\u00a0an\u00a0offence\u00a0punishable\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a0498A\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Indian\u00a0Penal\u00a0Code.\u00a0The\u00a0Court\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0oblivious\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0marriage\u00a0which\u00a0lasted\u00a0for\u00a0hardly\u00a0five\u00a0months,\u00a0the\u00a0wife\u00a0was\u00a0subjected\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0cruelty\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0an\u00a0extent\u00a0that\u00a0she\u00a0would\u00a0file\u00a0a\u00a0petition\u00a0for\u00a0divorce.\u00a0There\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0no\u00a0effort\u00a0from\u00a0her\u00a0relatives\u00a0to\u00a0pacify\u00a0the\u00a0relations\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0young\u00a0couple.\u00a0As\u00a0against\u00a0this,\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0has\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0petition\u00a0seeking\u00a0restitution\u00a0of\u00a0conjugal\u00a0rights\u00a0which\u00a0reflects\u00a0his\u00a0attitude\u00a0and\u00a0inclination\u00a0to\u00a0forgive\u00a0the\u00a0complainant.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0surprising\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Family\u00a0Court\u00a0at\u00a0Ujjain\u00a0has\u00a0passed\u00a0a\u00a0decree\u00a0of\u00a0divorce\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0year\u00a02010\u00a0itself.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0doubtful\u00a0as\u00a0to\u00a0whether\u00a0a\u00a0ground\u00a0was\u00a0made\u00a0out\u00a0for\u00a0judicial\u00a0separation\u00a0for\u00a0a\u00a0period\u00a0of\u00a02\u00a0years\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0informant\u00a0could\u00a0get\u00a0a\u00a0divorce.\u00a0<\/p>\n

18\u00a0The\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0recent\u00a0Judgment\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Arnesh\u00a0Kumar\u00a0v\/s.\u00a0State\u00a0of\u00a0Bihar\u00a0&\u00a0anr.\u00a0has\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00ad\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u00a0is\u00a0phenomenal\u00a0increase\u00a0in\u00a0matrimonial\u00a0disputes\u00a0in\u00a0recent
\nyears.\u00a0The\u00a0institution\u00a0of\u00a0marriage\u00a0is\u00a0greatly\u00a0revered\u00a0in\u00a0this
\ncountry.\u00a0Section\u00a0498\u00adA\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0IPC\u00a0was\u00a0introduced\u00a0with\u00a0avowed
\nobject\u00a0to\u00a0combat\u00a0the\u00a0menace\u00a0of\u00a0harassment\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0woman\u00a0at\u00a0the
\nhands\u00a0of\u00a0her\u00a0husband\u00a0and\u00a0his\u00a0relatives.\u00a0The\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0Section
\n498\u00adA\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0cognizable\u00a0and\u00a0non\u00adbailable\u00a0offence\u00a0has\u00a0lent\u00a0it\u00a0a
\ndubious\u00a0place\u00a0of\u00a0pride\u00a0amongst\u00a0the\u00a0provisions\u00a0that\u00a0are\u00a0used\u00a0as
\nweapons\u00a0rather\u00a0than\u00a0shield\u00a0by\u00a0disgruntled\u00a0wives.\u00a0The\u00a0simplest
\nway\u00a0to\u00a0harass\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0get\u00a0the\u00a0husband\u00a0and\u00a0his\u00a0relatives\u00a0arrested
\nunder\u00a0this\u00a0provision.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

19\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0matter\u00a0of\u00a0record\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0had\u00a0to\u00a0undergo\u00a0incarceration\u00a0for\u00a0a\u00a0week\u00a0because\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0arrested\u00a0unaware.\u00a0The\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0was\u00a0arrested\u00a0on\u00a026th\u00a0September,\u00a02008\u00a0and\u00a0was\u00a0released\u00a0on\u00a0bail\u00a0on\u00a01\/10\/2008.\u00a0The\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0was\u00a0exposed\u00a0to\u00a0social\u00a0obloquy\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0place\u00a0of\u00a0service\u00a0since\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0arrested\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0office\u00a0i.e.\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0TCS\u00a0office\u00a0and\u00a0was\u00a0handcuffed.\u00a0\u00a0All\u00a0this\u00a0would\u00a0clearly\u00a0show\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0was\u00a0seeking\u00a0personal\u00a0vendetta\u00a0without\u00a0there\u00a0being\u00a0any\u00a0sufficient\u00a0grounds.<\/p>\n

20\u00a0The\u00a0contention\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0learned\u00a0Counsel\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0petitioners\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioners\u00a0had\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0application\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0Right\u00a0to\u00a0Information\u00a0Act\u00a0which\u00a0showed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0uncle\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0was\u00a0present\u00a0in\u00a0their\u00a0office\u00a0at\u00a0Ujjain\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0day\u00a0when\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0shown\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0taken\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0from\u00a0Pune\u00a0to\u00a0Ujjain\u00a0needs\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0considered.\u00a0He\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0obtained\u00a0any\u00a0leave\u00a0to\u00a0visit\u00a0Pune.\u00a0<\/p>\n

21\u00a0\u00a0As\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0has\u00a0observed,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0seen\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case\u00a0the\u00a0disgruntled\u00a0wife\u00a0filed\u00a0the\u00a0proceedings\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a0498A,\u00a0406,\u00a0323\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Indian\u00a0Penal\u00a0Code.\u00a0Soon\u00a0thereafter,\u00a0a\u00a0petition\u00a0is\u00a0filed\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0provisions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Protection\u00a0of\u00a0Women\u00a0from\u00a0Domestic\u00a0Violence\u00a0Act,\u00a02005.\u00a0Thereafter\u00a0the\u00a0proceedings\u00a0are\u00a0initiated\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0Family\u00a0Court.\u00a0Hence,\u00a0the\u00a0husband\u00a0and\u00a0his\u00a0relatives\u00a0have\u00a0to\u00a0go\u00a0through\u00a0the\u00a0ordeal\u00a0of\u00a0legal\u00a0proceedings\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0case\u00a0in\u00a03\u00a0different\u00a0courts.\u00a0Hence,\u00a0the\u00a0time\u00a0has\u00a0come\u00a0to\u00a0keep\u00a0in\u00a0mind\u00a0the\u00a0observations\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0and\u00a0pass\u00a0an\u00a0appropriate\u00a0orders\u00a0to\u00a0prevent\u00a0an\u00a0abuse\u00a0of\u00a0process\u00a0of\u00a0law.<\/p>\n

22\u00a0In\u00a0fact,\u00a0the\u00a0Government\u00a0of\u00a0Maharashtra\u00a0had\u00a0issued\u00a0a\u00a0circular\u00a0to\u00a0all\u00a0Police\u00a0Station\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0whenever\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0complaint\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a0498A,\u00a0the\u00a0concerned\u00a0police\u00a0officer\u00a0should\u00a0call\u00a0upon\u00a0both\u00a0the\u00a0parties\u00a0and\u00a0make\u00a0an\u00a0effort\u00a0to\u00a0bring\u00a0about\u00a0reconciliation\u00a0and\u00a0give\u00a0them\u00a0sufficient\u00a0time\u00a0to\u00a0come\u00a0to\u00a0terms.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0case,\u00a0it\u00a0appears\u00a0that\u00a0no\u00a0serious\u00a0allegations\u00a0were\u00a0made\u00a0at\u00a0Chaturshrungi\u00a0Police\u00a0Station\u00a0which\u00a0would\u00a0even\u00a0warrant\u00a0prosecution\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a0498A\u00a0and\u00a0therefore,\u00a0in\u00a0all\u00a0probabilities\u00a0the\u00a0police\u00a0officers\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0called\u00a0upon\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03.\u00a0At\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0time,\u00a0it\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0ignored\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0was\u00a0in\u00a0fact,\u00a0arrested\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0police\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0office\u00a0and\u00a0was\u00a0paraded\u00a0as\u00a0if\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0a\u00a0hardened\u00a0\u00a0criminal.\u00a0The\u00a0police\u00a0machinery\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0only\u00a0stopped\u00a0at\u00a0that,\u00a0but\u00a0had\u00a0sought\u00a0police\u00a0custody\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0ground\u00a0of\u00a0recovery\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0passport\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0and\u00a0other\u00a0articles.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0highhandedness\u00a0and\u00a0influence\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0complainant\u00a0party\u00a0was\u00a0writ\u00a0large\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0face\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0record\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0police\u00a0\u00a0had\u00a0detained\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner\u00a0No.\u00a03\u00a0in\u00a0custody\u00a0without\u00a0verification\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0facts.<\/p>\n

23\u00a0On\u00a0perusal\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0facts\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0and\u00a0observations\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0cited\u00a0supra,\u00a0and\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0reasons\u00a0mentioned\u00a0hereinabove,\u00a0the\u00a0Petition\u00a0seeking\u00a0discharge\u00a0deserves\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0allowed.<\/p>\n

24\u00a0The\u00a0Writ\u00a0Petition\u00a0is\u00a0allowed\u00a0in\u00a0terms\u00a0of\u00a0prayer\u00a0clause\u00a0(b).\u00a0Rule\u00a0is\u00a0made\u00a0absolute.\u00a0Writ\u00a0Petition\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0accordingly.<\/p>\n

(SMT.\u00a0SADHANA\u00a0S.\u00a0JADHAV,J)\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.312 OF 2014 Vinod Rajkrishan Kaushik & ors.…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[47,27733,27734,27729,212,27732,27730,1689,27731,27728],"class_list":["post-3337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-498a","tag-498a-circular","tag-498a-guidence","tag-a-k-padhy","tag-no-arrest","tag-no-arrest-circular","tag-s-r-shinde","tag-section-498a","tag-smt-sadhana-s-jadhav","tag-vinod-rajkrishan-kaushik"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}