SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhijit S/O Ashok Deshmukh And … vs The State Of Maharashtra And … on 11 June, 2018

1 Application 2808 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Application No.2808 of 2015
With
Criminal Application No.1524 of 2018

1) Abhijeet s/o. Ashok Deshmukh,
Age 29 years,
Occupation: Service.

2) Aruna w/o Ashok Deshmukh,
Age 48 years,
Occupation: Household.

3) Ashok s/o Genda Deshmukh,
Age 55 years,
Occupation: Service.

4) Rajnikant s/o Ashok Deshmukh,
Age 32 years,
Occupation: Service.

5) Sandip s/o Ashok Deshmukh,
Age 27 years,
Occupation: Service.

6) Snehal w/o Rajnikant Deshmukh,
Age 26 years,
Occupation: Household.
All R/o Shivajinagar, Kalwan,
Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik. .. Applicants.

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Inspector,
Dhule Taluka Police Station,
District Dhule.

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::
2 Application 2808 of 2015

2) Vaishali Abhijeet Deshmukh,
Age 26 years,
Occupation: Household,
R/o C/o Pundlik Bhatu Sonawane,
R/o Ner, Taluka District Dhule. .. Respondents.

—-
Shri. Bharat R Waramaa, Advocate, for applicants .

Shri. P.G. Borade, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.

Shri. Nilesh N. Desale, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
—-

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE
K.L. WADANE, JJ.

Date: 11 JUNE 2018

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent, heard both sides for final disposal.

2) Criminal Application No.2808/2015 is filed

under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for

relief of quashing of F.I.R.No.66/2015 registered with

Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dhule for offences punishable

under sections 498A, 406, 420, 468, 504 etc. read with

section 34 of Indian Penal Code and for quashing of the

charge sheet filed which is given R.C.C. No.290/2015 in

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::
3 Application 2808 of 2015

the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule.

Both the sides are heard.

3) The first informant is the wife of applicant No.1

Abhijeet Deshmukh. Applicant No.2 is mother of applicant

No.1 and applicant No.3 is husband of applicant No.2.

Applicant No.4 is the brother of applicant No.1 Abhijeet

and he is elder brother. Applicant No.5 is younger brother

of applicant No.1 and applicant No.6 is the wife of

applicant No.4.

4) In the F.I.R. given by the wife of applicant No.1

she has contended that she was given in marriage on 6-6-

2014 to applicant No.1 and the expenses of the marriage

were borne by her parents. It is her contention that by

way of dowry amount of Rs.8.5 lakh was given and also so

many gold and silver ornament were given in the

marriage. It is her case that after the marriage she started

cohabiting with applicant No.1 at Kalwan where the

remaining applicant were living in joint family. The report

was given on 23-3-2015, within one year of the marriage

and no issue is born out of the marriage.

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::

4 Application 2808 of 2015

5) It is the case of the wife that after 3 months of

the marriage the present applicants started taking

suspicion about her character by saying that she was

receiving calls of some persons. It is her contention that

after some time they started asking her to bring Rs.5 lakh

as they wanted to purchase a flat in Mumbai. It is

contended that the parents could not meet this demand

and so ill-treatment was started to her.

6) It is the case of the wife that on 6-2-2015 when

she was at Kalwan the applicants called her father and

cousin Lakshdeep and they made false allegation about

her character and they gave threats to her father and

under the threats they obtained signatures of her father

and of her on a stamp which was notarised before

Advocate Bachav. It is her contention that by using that

document, applicant No.1 is trying to take divorce from

her. It is her contention that on 15-3-2015 she was driven

out the house out of the aforesaid suspicion and then she

returned to Ner, the place of her parents and she has been

living there since then.

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::

5 Application 2808 of 2015

7) It is the case of the wife that on 22-3-2015 at

about 11.00 a.m. applicant Nos.2 to 6 came to her village

at the instigation given by applicant No.1 and they picked

up quarrel and they asked her to sign on one more stamp

paper. It is contended that she refused to sign on it and

then they left the place.

8) During investigation, statements of some

relatives on parents’ side of the wife are recorded. The

statements of some neighbours of her father are also

recorded. The document which was allegedly got executed

on 6-2-2015 is seized by police and it was produced by

the husband.

9) The learned counsel for the applicants took this

Court through the record of one proceeding filed by the

wife under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Some record is

produced along with second application in the present

proceeding. It is not disputed that on one document, in

which the wife has admitted that her character was not

good, there are signatures of the wife and also of her

father. This circumstance is admitted in the application

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::
6 Application 2808 of 2015

filed by the wife. The relevant material and the statement

of the Notary Public are not supporting the wife. Learned

counsel for the applicants placed reliance on some

observations made by the Apex Court in the cases

reported as AIR 1997 SC 1448 (Guru Bipin Singh v.

Chongthammanihar Singh) and, 2010 AIRSCW 405 (Md.

Ibrahim v. State of Bihar) and submitted that the

allegations as they are, cannot constitute offence under

section 467 or 420 of IPC in respect of the aforesaid

document. The submissions made by the other side show

that the husband has filed a divorce proceeding. The

learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even as

per the contentions and the address given, only the

husband is living in Mumbai and at the most his

permanent place of residence is Kalwan, District Nashik.

It was submitted that at the most it can be presumed that

parents of the husband were living in joint family with the

husband. The submissions made and the record show that

the husband had contended that his elder brother was

with him in the present dispute. Due to these

circumstance it cannot be said that applicant No.4,

Rajnikant is not involved in the matter. However, in view

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::
7 Application 2808 of 2015

of the nature of allegations and the way in which things

work in our society it cannot be said that the wife of

Rajnikant had any voice in the aforesaid dispute and the

younger brother of the husband had also any say or voice

in the dispute in the matter. The younger brother was

receiving education and now he is in service. Possibility of

false implication is there. This Court holds that it will be

misuse of process of law if the prosecution is allowed to

go on as against applicant Nos.5 and 6. However, that

cannot be said in respect of applicant Nos.1 to 4 in view of

nature of allegations and the material. The contentious

made by the learned counsel for the applicants with

regard to admission of improper conduct of the wife given

in the document cannot be considered in the present

proceeding. To this document, the applicant Nos.5 and 6

were not party. In view of these circumstances this Court

holds that, relief can be granted only in favour of

applicant Nos.5 and 6. In the result, following order.

10) Criminal Application No.2808 of 2015 is

allowed only to the extent of applicant No.5 – Sandip

Ashok Deshmukh and applicant No.6 – Snehal Rajnikant

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/2018 16/06/2018 01:00:45 :::
8 Application 2808 of 2015

Deshmukh. The charge sheet filed in F.I.R. No.66/2015

registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station in the Court of

the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dhule against these

two applicants for offences punishable under sections

498-A, 420, 468, 406, 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal

Code is hereby quashed and set aside. Relief is granted

only to that extent. The application of applicant Nos.1 to 4

stands rejected. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

Criminal Application No.1524/2018 is disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/-
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

rsl

::: Uploaded on – 15/06/201816/06/2018 01:00:45 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation