( Order ) 1 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6755 OF 2015
1) Milind s/o Umaji Dudhmal,
Age 27 years, Occupation Labour,
R/o Kawalgaon Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
(Disposed as withdrawn as per order dtd.22-12-15)
2) Umaji s/o Narayan Dudhmal,
Age 65 years, Occupation Labour,
R/o Kawalgaon Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
(Disposed as withdrawn as per order dtd.22-12-15)
3) Shantabai w/o Umaji Dudhmal,
Age 60 years, Occupation Household,
R/o Kawalgaon Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
(Disposed as withdrawn as per order dtd.22-12-15)
4) Komal Raju Dudhmal,
Age 26 years, Occupation Household,
R/o Kawalgaon Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
(Disposed as withdrawn as per order dtd.22-12-15)
5) Raju s/o Umaji Dudhmal,
Age 30 years, Occupation Labour,
R/o Kawalgaon Tq. Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
(Disposed as withdrawn as per order dtd.22-12-15)
6) Pornima Rangnath Kosare,
Age 20 years, Occupation Household,
R/o Pimpalgaon Murud
Tq. Palam Dist. Parbhani.
7) Rangnath Tukaram Kosare,
Age 60 years, Occupation Labour,
R/o Pimpalgaon Murud
Tq. Palam Dist. Parbhani.
8) Bhagwan s/o Rangnath Kosare,
Age 26 years, Occupation Labour,
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:21 :::
( Order ) 2 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
R/o Pimpalgaon Murud
Tq. Palam Dist. Parbhani.
9) Indubai w/o Rangnath Kosare,
Age 55 years, Occupation Household,
R/o Pimpalgaon Murud
Tq. Palam Dist. Parbhani. …Applicants
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Selu,
Tq. Selu Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Police Inspector.
2) Nisha w/o Milind Dudhmal,
Age 24 years, Occupation Household,
R/o At Present Walur Tq.Selu
Dist. Parbhani. …Respondents
—-
Mr. P. N. Kalani, Advocate for applicants.
Ms. P. V. Diggikar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1
/ State.
Mr. S. P. Malode, Advocate for respondent No.2.
—-
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
Date of reserving
the order : 10th October, 2018.
Date of pronouncing
the order : 23rd October, 2018.
ORAL ORDER : ( Per SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
1. Present application has been filed by original accused persons
for invoking of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to get the First Information
report bearing Cr. No. 229 of 2015 dt. 13-10-2015 registered with
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 3 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
Selu Police Station, Tal. Selu, Dist. Parbhani for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 494, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. Applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2. Applicants
No. 2 and 3 are the parents, applicant No. 4 is nephew and applicant
No. 5 is the sister-in-law (brother’s wife) of applicant No. 1. It will
not be out of place to mention here that the relief in the application
in respect of applicants No. 1 to 5 has been rejected by this Court
vide order dt. 22-12-2015. Hence, the application is considered only
for applicants No. 6 to 9.
3. Applicant No. 6 is alleged to be the second wife of applicant
No. 1. Applicants No. 7 and 9 are the parents of applicant No. 6 and
applicant No. 8 is her brother.
4. Respondent No. 2/ first informant has contended that she was
married to applicant No. 1 on 26-04-2010 at Valur. After marriage,
she started residing with applicant No. 1 to 5. She has son Namesh
aged 4 and daughter aged 1 ½ from the applicant No. 1. Her father
had given utensils and domestic articles at the time of her marriage.
Her husband is labour and nephew is mason. Her gold ornaments
and silver anklet was taken by applicants No. 1 to 5, when she was
pregnant at the time of her daughter. She was asked to bring
amount of Rs.25,000/- from her father and she was driven out of
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 4 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
the house. After she went back to matrimonial house, after delivery,
applicants No. 1 to 5 had assaulted her father, who had come to
leave her. She was persuaded by her father and then she stayed
with applicants No. 1 to 5. Applicants No. 4 and 5 used to instigate
applicant No. 1 by saying bad things about her. Her husband used to
assault her. Applicants No. 1 to 3 used to demand amount of
Rs.25,000/- from her. They used to say that after she brings that
amount, she should reside separately. However, she sustained the
ill-treatment, but she came to her father’s house with daughter
about 3 months prior to the FIR. Applicants No. 1 to 5 did not allow
her to bring son with her. They are insisting that she should come for
cohabitation only after fulfilling the demand. She had given
application for mediation, but it failed. She has further stated that
applicant No. 1 has performed second marriage with applicant No. 6.
Applicants No. 7 to 9 were aware that applicant No. 1 was married to
respondent No. 2, still the said marriage has been performed.
Hence, she has lodged the report.
5. Applicants No. 6 to 9 have contended that allegations against
them are baseless. The contents of the FIR would clearly show that
no offence can be said to be made out against them for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal
Code. They are not ‘relatives of husband’ as contemplated in Section
498A of Indian Penal Code. They are residing at different place from
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 5 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
the residence of applicants No. 1 to 5. They have therefore, prayed
for quashing up of the FIR.
6. Heard learned Advocate Shri. P. N. Kalani for applicants No. 6
to 9, learned A. P. P. Ms. P. V. Diggikar for respondent No. 1 and
learned Advocate Shri. S. P. Malode for respondent No. 2.
7. It has been submitted on behalf of applicants No. 6 to 9 that
respondent No. 2 has made baseless allegations against applicants
No. 6 to 9 alleging that applicant No. 6 has performed marriage with
applicant No. 1 and applicants No. 7 to 9 had the knowledge of
previous marriage of applicant No. 1 still the marriage was allowed
to be performed between applicants No. 1 and 6. Applicants No. 6 to
9 are not ‘relatives of husband by marriage’. When respondent No. 2
says that her marriage with applicant No. 1 is still subsisting then,
applicants No. 6 to 9 can not be prosecuted for allegedly committing
offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. There
are not allegations against them attracting provisions of Section 323,
504 of Indian Penal Code. At the most, they can be considered
under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, without admitting the
contents of said allegations. Police can not take cognizance of
complaint for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code, in view of specific bar under Section 198 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. Only a private complaint of the aggrieved party
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 6 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
would lie before a competent Court. Learned Advocate for the
applicants No. 6 to 9, therefore, prayed for quashing up of the FIR
against them. To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the
decision in U. Suvetha v/s. State by Inspector of Police and
Anr [2009 AIR SCW 3491].
8. Per contra, the learned A. P. P. Submitted that specific
allegations are made in the FIR that applicant No. 1 has performed
second marriage with applicant No. 6. Performance of second
marriage would also amount to “cruelty” and therefore, second wife
and her relatives also can be prosecuted for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Learned A. P. P. Further
submitted that when the FIR is filed for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the cognizance of the same
can be taken by Police, then Police is also entitled to investigate
offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. She
relied on the decision in Ushaben v/s. Kishorbhai Chunilal
Talpada and others [2012 (4) Mh. L. J. (Cri) 26 (SC)]; wherein
it has been held that, “if a complaint contains allegations about
commission of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC which is a
cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of
offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance
thereof even on a police report”. Hence, the FIR can not be quashed
against applicants No. 6 to 9.
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 7 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
9. Thus, it can be seen that the points raised by applicants No. 6
to 9 are two fold. One is that the cognizance of offence under
Section 494 of Indian Penal Code can not be taken by Magistrate
when police report is filed to that effect. Second is that they can not
be arrayed in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, as they are not
“the relatives” of husband i.e. Applicant No. 1. As regards the first
point is concerned the legal point has been settled in Ushaben’s
case (supra). It has been observed that, “A conjoint reading of the
above provisions makes it clear that a complaint under Section 494
of the IPC must be made by the aggrieved person. Section 498-A
does not fall in Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code. It falls in
Chapter XXA. Section 198A which we have quoted hereinabove,
permits a court to take cognizance of offence punishable under
Section 498A upon a police report of facts which constitute offence.
It must be borne in mind that all these provisions relate to
cognizance of the offence by the court”. Further it has been observed
that, “Upshot of the above discussion is that, no fetters can be put
on the police preventing them from investigating the complaint
which alleges offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and also
offence under Section 494 of the IPC”. Therefore, in that the case
the direction to delete Section 494 of the IPC was set aside. Taking
into consideration the said decision it can be said that when the
Police have invoked Section 498-A along with Section 494, they can
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 8 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
investigate the matter and file report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to
take cognizance for both the offences. Hence, the FIR for the
offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code can not
be quashed on the point that police can not take cognizance and
investigate the said offence in view of bar under Section 198 of Code
of Criminal Procedure.
10. Now, as regards the second point is concerned, the second
wife and her relatives can not be termed as “relatives of husband” as
contemplated in Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in view of the
decision in U. Suvetha (supra). In that case it has been held that
during the subsistence of first marriage, the second marriage is held
to be null and void and the second wife cannot be conferred with the
status of relative of the husband, that too for the purpose of
attracting the provisions of law under Section 498-A Indian Penal
Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that living with
another woman is an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for
the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage, but the
same would not attract the wrath of Section 498-A Indian Penal
Code. In order to attract Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, they have
to be either the husband or his relative and any other person
associated with the husband may be held guilty for abetment of
commission of such an offence, but not an offence under Section
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 9 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
498-A Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the second point raised by the
applicants has substance.
11. Learned Advocate for the applicants No. 6 to 9 has also relied
on the decision in Swati Sachin Mahajan (Pagare) v/s. State of
Maharashtra [2007 (5) Mh. L. J. 427]. In this case, a complaint
was filed alleging that offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal
Code has been committed. However, after the presentation of the
complaint, the learned Magistrate had sent it for investigation under
Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order was
set aside on the ground that Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is
non-cognizable and therefore, investigation under Section 156 (3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure can not be directed. It appears that no
other section of Indian Penal Code was invoked in that case. The
facts of the present case are different. Here allegations are made in
respect of other cognizable offence also.
12. Further reliance was also placed on the decision in Sangita
Natthulal Labhane v/s. Yashodhara Krishna Bhitre and Anr
[2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2228]. This decision is prior to the decision in
Ushaben’s decision and therefore, can not be looked into.
13. As aforesaid the FIR can not be quashed at this stage against
applicants No. 6 to 9, since offence under Section 494 of Indian
Penal Code has been invoked for them. Interesting point is that if
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::
( Order ) 10 Cri.Apln No.6755-2015
there is no relation between applicants No. 1 to 5 with applicants No.
6 to 9, then how a common application is filed by them? There is a
need to have investigation into the allegations against them also,
hence, powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure can not be applied. The application is therefore, rejected.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) (T. V. NALAWADE)
JUDGE JUDGE
vjg/-.
::: Uploaded on – 23/10/2018 27/10/2018 01:49:22 :::