(Judgment) (1) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Criminal Application No. 04813 of 2017

District : Aurangabad

1. Arjun Haribhau Bhivsane,
Age : 61 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Room No.411,
Build.-2, co-op.
Suraksha Hou. Society,
Mhada Colony, Vashi Naka,
Chembur (East), Mumbai.

2. Mathurabai Arjun Bhivsane,
Age : 55 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Room No.411,
Build.-2, co-op.
Suraksha Hou. Society,
Mhada Colony, Vashi Naka,
Chembur (East), Mumbai.

3. Vilas Arjun Bhivsane,
Age : 37 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Narayan Nagar
Zopadpatti (B),
Mahatma Phule Nagar,
P.L. Lokhande Marg (N),
Chembur, Mumbai.

4. Aashvini Vilas Bhivsane,
Age : 28 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. Narayan Nagar
Zopadpatti (B),
Mahatma Phule Nagar,
P.L. Lokhande Marg (N),
Chembur, Mumbai.
(Judgment) (2) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

5. Mangesh Arjun Bhivsane,
Age : 29 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
P.L. Lokhande Marg, Chembur,
Mumbai.

6. Manisha Mangesh Bhivsane,
Age : 25 years,
R/o. Mahatma Phule Nagar,
P.L. Lokhande Marg,
Chembur, Mumbai.

7. Shamrao Govinda Vahul,
Age : 62 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. at post Pimpalgaon,
Taluka Sillod,
District Aurangabad.

8. Anusaya Shamrao Vahul,
Age : 56 years,
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. at post Pimpalgaon,
Taluka Sillod,
District Aurangabad.

9. Suvarna Ranjit Dandge, .. Applicants
Age : 38 years,
Occupation : Nil,
R/o. 7/14, Mahatma Phule
Nagar, P.L. Lokhande Marg,
Chembur, Mumbai.

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. Priya w/o. Kailash Bhivasane,
Age : 26 years,
Occupation : Household, .. Respondents.
R/o. Aanand Park, Sillod,
Taluka Sillod,
District Aurangabad.

………..
(Judgment) (3) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

Application of applicant nos.01, 02 and 09 rejected
as not pressed, as per Court’s order dated 19.09.2017.

………..

Mr. Bhushan S. Borde, Advocate, for the applicants.

Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, Additional Public Prosecutor,
for respondent no.01.

Ms. Uma S. Bhosle, Advocate (appointed), for
respondent no.02.

************

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER 2018.

JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.] :

01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard finally.

02. Present application has been filed by
original accused persons invoking the inherent powers
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in order to quash the First
Information Report vide Crime No. 22 of 2017,
registered with Sillod Police Station, Sillod, Dist.
Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. It will not be out of place to mention here that
relief claimed by applicants No. 1, 2 and 9 has been
rejected by this Court vide order dt. 19-09-2017.

(Judgment) (4) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

Hence, the application has been considered only for
applicants No. 3 to 8. During the pendency of this
application, charge-sheet has been filed vide R. C. C.
No. 199 of 2017 before J. M. F. C., Sillod. Applicants
have prayed for quashment of the said proceedings
also, by way of amendment.

03. Respondent No.2 got married to Kailash
Bhivsane on 26-04-2015 at Anand Park, Sillod.
Applicants No.1 and 2 are the parents of husband of
respondent No. 2. Applicants No.3 is brother of
Kailash and applicant No. 4 is the wife of applicant
No. 3. Applicant No.5 is another brother of Kailash
and applicant No. 6 is the wife of applicant No. 5.
Applicant No.7 and applicant No.8 are stated to be
relatives of Kailash.

04. Respondent No.2 – informant has contended
that, at the time of marriage, domestic articles were
given. Her husband and relatives were residing
together at Chembur (East), Mumbai. She was taken to
Mumbai and treated properly for 8 days after the
marriage. Thereafter, applicants No. 1 to 6 and
Kailash started saying that her relatives had not
honoured them at the time of marriage and proper gifts
have not been given. Gold ring has not been given to
Kailash. She was kept starved. They used to put latch
the bathroom from outside, when she used to take bath.
She was driven out of the house at night time.

(Judgment) (5) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

Applicant No. 9 used to come on every Sunday and used
to abuse her on trifle grounds. Applicants No. 7 and 8
had also gone to Mumbai on 2-4 times and abused,
assaulted her on the count of non-fulfillment of
demand of gold ring. She had narrated the harassment
to her mother, brother and sister. Then she was taken
to her mother’s house in June 2015. She was taken back
for cohabitation after a meeting at Pandhari, which
was attended by husband, applicants No. 4, 5, 7 and 8.
Again she was treated properly for one month. All the
applicants started harassing her on the same count.
She narrated it again to her mother, brother and
sister. She was taken back to her mother’s place on
10-06-2016. Applicants No. 1, 2, Kailash, 4, 5, 7 and
8 came on 15-12-2016 to take her back. Again a meeting
was called at Pandhari. At that time, Kailash had
assaulted her. When her brother went to rescue her, he
was beaten by Kailash and his family members who were
present there. They gave threat that they will not
take her back for cohabitation and she is at liberty
to lodge any case. Thereafter, her mother and others
had contacted Kailash and others several times for her
cohabitation, but all of them refused. She gave
complaint application to Mahila Samupdeshan Kendra.
Efforts were made for reconciliation, but failed due
to applicants. Therefore, she has lodged the report.

05. The applicants have contended that, they have
not committed any offence. The FIR has been lodged
(Judgment) (6) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

only to grab the property of Kailash. Applicants No. 3
to 6 are residing in another area since August 2014.
Accused Nos. 7 and 8 are residents of Pimpalgaon, Tal.
Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. They never went to Mumbai.
Applicants No. 3 to 8 have no reason to harass
respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 wanted to kill
applicant No. 1 and therefore, he has filed complaint
against her with police. FIR has been given just to
harass them. Details of the events have not been given
and they have been kept as vague as possible.
Therefore, they have prayed for quashment of the
proceedings.

06. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. S. Borde
appearing on behalf of applicants, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor Mr. A. A. Jagatkar and learned
Advocate Mr. U. S. Bhosale, appointed for respondent
No.2. All of them have argued in support of their
respective contentions.

07. The application was considered only for the
allegations against applicants No. 3 to 8. No
specific role has been attributed against them in
respect of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. If at all there would have been a demand,
it would have been mainly by the husband, father-in-
law, mother-in-law and applicant No. 9 in particular.
The perusal of the entire FIR would show that all the
applicants had made the demand in chorus which is not
(Judgment) (7) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

possible when elders are there. Nothing was demanded
by applicants No.3 to 8 for themselves as per the
allegations in the FIR itself. Further it is alleged
that the demand was of gold ring to Kailash. Charge-
sheet is also filed after investigation against all
the applicants. Perusal of charge-sheet would show
that none of the witnesses have stated any specific
role of applicants No. 3 to 8. The exact relation
between applicants No. 1 7 and 8 is not stated by
them. They can not be ‘relatives’ within Sec. 498A of
Indian Penal Code. Applicant Nos. 3 to 8 are residents
of other place. That means, they are residing
separately from Kailash and respondent No. 2. So, it
appears that, as a routine, all the relatives of the
husband have been roped. It would be futile exercise
to ask applicants No. 3 to 8 to face the trial. Under
such circumstance, relief is required to be granted to
the applicant No.3 to 8 by invoking the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Hence, following order.

ORDER

1) Application of applicants No. 3 to 8 is
hereby allowed.

2) Relief is granted in terms of prayer
clause “B-1” to the applicants No. 3 to 8
only.

3) Application to the extent of applicants
No.1, 2 and 9 was dismissed vide order
dt. 19-09-2017.

(Judgment) (8) Cri. Appln. No. 4813 of 2017

4) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

08. The fees of the appointed Advocate is
quantified at Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only),
which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services,
Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( T.V. Nalawade )
JUDGE JUDGE

………..

puranik (#) / CRIAPPLN4813.17

Digitally signed
by Bhagwan
Bhagwan Govindrao
Puranik
Govindrao Date:
Puranik 2018.10.04
11:47:44
+0530