5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5052 OF 2016
1. Jaypal s/o. Natha More,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Service
2. Natha s/o. Amaruta More,
Age: 62 Years, Occu: Labour.
3. Panchaphulabai w/o. Natha More,
Age: 60 Years, Household.
4. Ramkishan s/o. Natha More,
Age: 38 Years, Occu. Labouror
5. Ashok s/o. Natha More,
Age: 30 Years, Occu. Labouror.
6. Laxmibai w/o. Ramkishan More,
Age 35 Years, Occu. Household.
All R/o. Atharwadi, Tq.Dist.Hingoli
7. Babasaheb s/o. Manikrao Thoke,
Age: 31 Years, Occu. Labouror,
R/o. Adgaon Bazar, Tq.Jintur,
Dist. Parbhani.
8. Prajawati d/o. Shamrao Dhule,
Age: 18 Years, Occu. Labouror
[The complainant has mentioned the
name of applicant No.8 as Prajawati
s/o. Jaypal More]
R/o. Mhaisgavan, Tq.Kalamnuri
Dist. Hingoli. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
2
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Narsi [Namdeo]
Tq. Dist.Hingoli.
[Copy to be served on Police
Prosecution of High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad]
2. Jayashri w/o. Jaypal More,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Kalamkonda [Ku], Tq.Kalamnuri
Dist. Hingoli
Police Station Kalamnuri RESPONDENTS
…
Mr.D.M.Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr.S.P.Deshmukh,APP for the Respondent/State
Mr.S.S.Londhe, Advocate for respondent no.2.
…
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 17.04.2017
Pronounced on : 20.04.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
3. This Application is filed with the
following prayer:
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
3B) The F.I.R., complaint, registered
with Narsi (Namdeo) Police Station
vide C.R.No. 12/2016 under Section
498 (a), 323, 494, 504, 34 of I.P.C.
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for the applicants that,
applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent
no.2 i.e. complainant, and applicant nos.2
and 3 are in-laws of respondent no.2; while
the rest of the applicants are brother-in-law
and sister-in-law of the complainant. It is
submitted that, except applicant no.1, rest
of the applicants never resided together in
one house at any point of time after marriage
of respondent no.2 with applicant no.1. It is
alleged in the FIR that, the complainant went
to reside at village Atharwadi, though
applicant no.1 is serving at Thane. It is
alleged that, applicant no.1 did not take
respondent no.2 at Thane and ask her to
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
4
reside at Atharwadi, District Hingoli, which
is native place of applicant no.1. It is
alleged by the complainant that, all the
accused persons used to harass and ill-treat
respondent no.2 for fulfillment of illegal
demand of Rs.70,000/-. There are also
allegation of instigation. It is submitted
that, even if the allegations in the FIR are
taken as it is, an ingredient to constitute
an alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323,
494, 504 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code are
not attracted. Only with a view to harass
applicant no.1 and his relatives, respondent
no.2 has lodged the First Information Report.
It is further submitted that, so far as
applicant no.4 – Ramkishan Natha More,
applicant no.5 Ashok Natha More and applicant
no.6 Laxmibai Ramkishan More are concerned,
there are no allegations against them in the
proceedings instituted under the Domestic
Violence Act. It is further submitted that,
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
5
respondent no.2 did file complaint before the
District Women and Child Development Officer
i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell, and in
the said complaint also, there are no
allegations against Ramkishan Natha More and
Laxmibai Ramkishan More. It is submitted
that, all family members are implicated
including husband of sister of applicant no.
1, namely, Babasaheb Manikrao Thoke. It is
further submitted that, applicant nos.5 to 8
are not at all residing with applicant no.1
and applicant nos.4 to 8 are residing
separately, and they are implicated only with
a view to harass the applicants. The
complainant started residing with her parents
since 18th September, 2013, till date. The
learned counsel appearing for the applicants
invites our attention to the grounds taken in
the application, and also annexures thereto
and submits that, the application deserves to
be allowed.
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
6
5. On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for respondent – State, relying
upon the investigation papers and the
allegations in the FIR, submits that, there
are serious allegations. All the applicants
participated in the marriage ceremony of
applicant no.1 with applicant no.8. It is
submitted that, though the marriage of
applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 is
subsisting; still applicant no.1 has
performed marriage with applicant no.8, and
therefore, there are allegations in the FIR,
which would attract ingredients to constitute
offence under Section 494 r/w.34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he submits
that, the application may be rejected.
6. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 submits that, applicant no.1
with the consent and connivance of the other
applicant nos.2 to 7 got married with
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
7
applicant no.8, though the marital tie
between applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 is
intact/in subsistence. Therefore, he submits
that, the application may be rejected.
7. We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, learned APP
appearing for the respondent – State, and the
learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2
at length. We have carefully perused the
allegations in the FIR, and we are of the
opinion that, except applicant no.4 Ramkishan
Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai
Ramkishan More, case of the other applicants
deserves no consideration.
8. So far as applicant no.4 Ramkishan
Natha More and applicant no.6 Laxmibai
Ramkishan More are concerned, there are no
allegations either in the complaint
instituted under the Domestic Violence Act by
respondent no.2, and also in the complaint
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
8
filed on 21st November, 2013, before the
District Women and Child Development Officer
i.e. Women Grievance Redressal Cell. Upon
careful perusal of the allegations in the
FIR, there are omnibus and general
allegations against the aforesaid two accused
persons.
9. So far as other accused i.e.
applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are
concerned, as rightly submitted by the
learned APP appearing for respondent – State
and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 that, during subsistence of
marital tie between applicant no.1 and
respondent no.2, there is an allegation in
the FIR that, applicant no.1 has performed
second marriage with applicant no.8 –
Prajawati. Unless the investigation is taken
to the logical end, the truth will not
surface on record.
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
9
10. In that view of the matter, we are
not inclined to entertain the application to
the extent of applicant nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and
8. Hence their application stands rejected.
11. In the light of discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, the FIR vide Crime No.
12/2016, registered with Narsi [Namdeo]
Police Station, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 504, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to the extent of applicant
no.4 Ramkishan Natha More and applicant no.6
Laxmibai Ramkishan More, stands quashed and
set aside.
12. Rule is made absolute on above
terms. Criminal Application stands disposed
of accordingly.
13. An observations made hereinabove are
prima facie in nature and confined to the
adjudication of the present application.
This order will not preclude the applicants,
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::
5052.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
10
whose applications stands rejected from
availing of an appropriate remedy in case the
Investigating Officer, after completion of
investigation, files report under Section 173
[2] of the Criminal Procedure Code.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
::: Uploaded on – 20/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 21/04/2017 00:54:30 :::