SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parmeshwar S/O. Chandrakant … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 March, 2018

(Judgment) (1) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

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

Criminal Writ Petition No. 01503 of 2017

District : Latur

1. Parmeshwar s/o. Chandrakant
Yenge,
Age : 33 years,
Occupation : Service
Agriculture.

2. Chandrakant s/o. Vyankatrao .. Petition
Yenge, dismissed as
Age : 59 years, withdrawn
Occupation : Agriculture. as against
petitioner nos.
3. Suvarna w/o. Chandrakant Yenge, 01 to 03 by
Age : 56 years, order dated
Occupation : Household. 08.11.2017.

4. Kamlakar s/o. Vyankat Yenge,
Age : 47 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.

5. Usha w/o. Kamlakar Yenge,
Age : 53 years,
Occupation : Household.

6. Shilpa w/o. Krushna Dandime,
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Household. .. Petitioner
nos.04 to 09
7. Krushna s/o. Ramkishan Dandime,
Age : 36 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.

8. Supriya w/o. Santosh Bembade,
Age : 26 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.

9. Santosh s/o. Suryakant Bembade,
Age : 31 years,
Occupation : Agriculture.

…Continued

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (2) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

10. Rajkumar s/o. Vitthal Madde,
Age : 46 years,
Occupation : Agriculture. .. Petitioner
no.10.
All R/o. Chimachiwadi,
Taluka Udgir, Dist. Latur.

versus

01. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur,
District Latur.

02. Reshma w/o. Parmeshwar Yenge,
Age : 27 years,
Occupation : Household, .. Respondents
R/o. Yengewadi, (No.02 – Original
Taluka Chakur, complainant)
District Latur.

At present,
R/o. Nagesh Colony,
Ahmedpur, Taluka Ahmedpur,
District Latur.

………..

Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. K.S. Patil, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.01.

Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate, for respondent
no.02 (Absent).

………..

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

DATE : 20TH MARCH 2018

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (3) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

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

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

02. Present petition has been filed by the
original accused persons invoking the inherent powers
of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, in order to get
the first information report and the charge-sheet
based upon the said report quashed and set aside. It
will not be out of place to mention at the first
place, that by order dated 08.11.2017 of this Court,
the writ petition has been withdrawn on behalf of
petitioner nos.01 to 03. Therefore, only the
petition in respect of petitioner nos.04 to 10 is for
consideration now at the final stage.

03. Present petitioner nos.04 to 10 have come
with a case, that FIR vide C.R. No. 300/2016 came to
be filed at the instance of respondent no.02 –
informant, at Police Station, Ahmedpur, District
Latur, contending that the accused persons have
committed offences punishable under Sections 498A,
324, 323, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Petitioner no.04 is the cousin
father-in-law of the informant. Petitioner no.05 is
the wife of petitioner no.04 (cousin mother-in-law).
Petitioner nos.06 and 08 are the married sisters-in-
law. Petitioner nos.07 and 09 are the husband of

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (4) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

petitioner nos.06 and 08, respectively. Petitioner
no.10 is the paternal cousin brother of the husband
of respondent no.02 – informant.

04. It is necessary to consider the contents of
the FIR first and then the other material that has
been collected. It has been contended by the
informant, that she got married to petitioner no.01
on 04.05.2012 at Yengewadi, Taluka Chakur, District
Latur. They have daughter by name Mayuri. After the
marriage, informant was treated properly for about
six months. Thereafter accused nos.01 to 03 started
demanding amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the purchase
of plot at Shirur Tajband and 10 Tola gold. When
this fact was informed by the informant to the
parents and relatives, they had pacified accused
nos.01 to 03. Accused nos.01 to 03 did not pay any
heed but they had beaten informant. In the meantime,
Mayuri was born. The informant was under the
impression that after birth of the daughter, she will
not be harassed. However, accused nos.01 to 03 used
to harass her for the said demand. They had kept her
starved and confined in the house. Accused nos.04 to
10 i.e. petitioner nos.04 to 10 used to instigate
accused nos.01 to 03 in order to harass her by
beating. All of them used to insult the informant.
It is the case of the informant, that she was
mentally and physically harassed. She was driven out
of the house in February 2016, by taking out her
Stridhan. Since then she is residing with her
parents. All the accused persons came to her

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (5) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

parent’s house on 08.08.2016 at about 01.00 p.m. The
informant felt that they all have come to take her
back but all the accused persons immediately started
abusing informant and her parents. They were asking
as to why they are not fulfilling their demand,
otherwise informant should take divorce. The
informant, her parents and brother were beaten.
Threat was given to them and thereafter all the
accused persons left. The informant has also stated
that she had tried to lodge a report with Ahmedpur
Police Station and sent a complaint by registered
post when her oral complaint was refused. She had
also given complaint to District Superintendent of
Police, Latur. However, no action was taken and
therefore she had filed private complaint before
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmedpur. The said
complaint was sent for investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the said
order, FIR came to be lodged.

05. Investigation has been carried out in the
nature of statements of witnesses and collection of
certain documents and after completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmedpur. The present
petitioner nos.04 to 10 have prayed for quashing the
proceedings against them.

06. Heard learned Advocate Shri V.D. Gunale for
petitioner nos.04 to 10 and learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor Shri K.S. Patil for respondent no.01.

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::

(Judgment) (6) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

Respondent no.02 was served and she appeared through
Advocate Shri S.K. Mathpati. He was absent at the
time of hearing.

07. It has been submitted on behalf of
petitioner nos.04 to 10, that the perusal of the FIR
would show that only omnibus statements regarding
instigation have been made against them. The
informant had knowledge that petitioner nos.04 to 10
were not the residents of Yengewadi. Though
petitioner nos.04 and 05 are shown as residents of
Yengewadi, they reside separately. The other
petitioners are residents of different places and
documents regarding their residence at the said
places have been produced on record. Even married
sisters are arrayed when they were not residing with
parents. The husbands of married sisters are also
roped in. Statements of the witnesses are only in
echo with the FIR and on the contrary, some different
reason has been given for alleged harassment. He
relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the matter of Varala Bharath Kumar others Vs. The State of
Telangana others [2017(11) SCALE 131].

08. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted
that taking into consideration the FIR and statements
of witnesses to whom immediate disclosure has been
made and also who were the eye witnesses to the
incident dated 08.08.2016 would show that the
offences have been made out against petitioner nos.04

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (7) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

to 10.

09. As the contents of the FIR are almost
reproduced in earlier paragraph, we do not want to
reproduce the same. As regards the allegations
against petitioner nos.04 to 10 are concerned, it is
stated that they used to instigate accused nos.01 to

03. They used to insult the informant. The act of
driving her out of the house is attributed to accused
nos.01 to 03. Further, as regards incident dated
08.08.2016 is concerned, it is stated that all the
accused persons went to the house of parents of the
informant and an assault had taken place when the
demand was refused. It appears that there was no
immediate reporting about the incident with Ahmedpur
Police Station on 08.08.2016 itself. Copy of the
charge-sheet which has been produced on record also
does not show that the written complaint sent by RPAD
by the informant was collected during the course of
investigation. Therefore, it was only the contents
of the criminal complaint which was then sent for
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was
before the police authorities. Statements of the
witnesses would show that it was informed by the
informant to them, that amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was
demanded for purchasing plot. They have not stated
that the said amount was demanded for a plot to be
purchased at Shirur Tajband. Further, there is
absolutely no mention that the informant told them
that there was demand of 10 Tola gold by the accused
persons. Only words “mental and physical harassment”

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::

(Judgment) (8) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

have been used and no particular act has been
attributed which will amount to harassment. On the
contrary, witnesses have improved their statements by
saying that the harassment was on the count that the
informant is of dark complexion. Parents of the
informant have not stated that the ornaments
belonging to the informant were forcibly kept by
accused nos.01 to 03 with them and then she was
driven out of the house. Statements of other
witnesses would show that they are relatives of the
informant. Thus, it is to be noted that no overt act
is attributed to each of the petitioner nos.04 to 10.

10. It has been observed in the matter of Varala
Bharath Kumar others (supra), thus :-

“8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was
added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of
his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping
the afore-mentioned object in mind, we have dealt with the
matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the
complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code. The records at hand could not disclose
any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show
that there was a demand of dowry by the Appellants or any of
their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage
or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose
anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a
view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.

9. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not
forthcoming from the records as against the Appellants. The
allegations contained in the complaint and the charge sheet do

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (9) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as
contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of
the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is
only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no
useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution
against the Appellants. This is a case where there is a total
absence of allegations for the offences punishable under
Section 498A and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In
the matter on hand, the allegations made in the First
Information Report as well as the material collected during the
investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the
offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian
Penal Code against the Accused / Appellants. So also the
uncontroverted allegations found against the Appellants do not
disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out
a case against the Accused. The proceedings initiated against
the Appellants are liable to be quashed. ”

Thus, from the above ratio in respect of the legal
position, definitely here in this case also, no case
has been made out against present petitioner nos.04
to 10.

11. The petitioners have now invoked the
inherent powers of this Court and it has been
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case cited
supra, thus :-

“7. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High
Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where allegations
made in the First Information Report / the complaint or the
outcome of investigation as found in the Charge Sheet, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case
against the Accused; where the allegations do not disclose the
ingredients of the offence alleged; where the uncontroverted

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::
(Judgment) (10) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

allegations made in the First Information Report or complaint
and the material collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of offence alleged and make out a
case against the Accused; where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with male fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite
him due to private and personal grudge, the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised. While
exercising power under Section 482 or under Article 226 in
such matters, the court does not function as a Court of Appeal
or Revision. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully or
with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down under Section 482 itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice,
for the administration of which alone courts exist. The court
must be careful and see that its decision in exercise of its
power is based on sound principles. The inherent powers
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Of
course, no hard and fast Rule can be laid down in regard to
cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. ”

Therefore, the said ratio of the judgment is
definitely applicable to the facts of the present
case. Definitely, now-a-days, unhealthy practice of
roping the other relatives of the husband has emerged
and, therefore, such practice is required to be
deprecated. When the evidence that has been
collected does not specify any offence made out
against petitioner nos.04 to 10, we find that this is
a fit case where we should exercise our powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

12. Hence, the following order :-

(a) The criminal writ petition is hereby allowed.

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::

(Judgment) (11) Cri. W.P. No. 01503 of 2017

(b) The impugned first information report registered
as Crime No. 300/2016, on 22.10.2016, with Ahmedpur
Police Station, District Latur, for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 323, 504, 506,
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
consequential proceedings of Regular Criminal Case
No. 290 of 2016 before Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
Ahmedpur, to the extent of petitioner nos.04 to 10,
are hereby quashed and set aside. Bail bonds of
petitioner nos.04 to 10, if any, stand cancelled.

(c) It is made clear, that R.C.C. No. 290 of 2016
shall proceed as against original accused nos.01 to
03 on its own merits.

(d) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( Prasanna B. Varale )
JUDGE JUDGE

………..

puranik / CRIWP1503.17

::: Uploaded on – 28/03/2018 29/03/2018 00:53:52 :::

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 © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation