Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Shashikant Samarth Pawar and Ors. - Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2016
Decided On : 24-02-2017
For the Applicants : Mr. N.L. Choudhari
For the Respondent: Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, Mr. Vijay B. Patil
Important Point: The casual reference to a large number of members of the husband’s family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Cruelty-Quashing of FIR.-Where from perusal of the allegations as against present applicants, neither any specific date of incident nor any specific allegations qua each of applicant had been mentioned, in absence of any specific allegations, no order for further investigation would be proper. Hence, FIR was quashed and set aside.
Upon careful perusal of the allegations as against present applicants, neither any specific date of incident nor any specific allegations qua each of the applicant have been mentioned. Admittedly, applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are resident of Rajkot District situate in Gujarat State. Merely because there is allegation that they used to visit the matrimonial place during summer vacation and used to ill-treat and harass respondent No. 2, in absence of any overtact attributed qua each of the applicant or in absence of any specific allegations, it will be exercise in futility to cause further investigation of such allegations. As already observed, there is delay of about 18 months in lodging the First Information Report.
Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement of respondent No. 2, that those are general in nature without mentioning any specific overt act qua each of the applicant and without any specific incident. Therefore, keeping in view the categories laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the case of the present applicants would fall within category Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the aforesaid categories. In that view of the matter, inevitable conclusion is that the First Information Report, so far as present applicants are concerned, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Application is filed praying therein to quash and set aside the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 321 of 2015, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon, Taluka and District-Jalgaon, dated 26th November, 2015, against the Applicants, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that matrimonial home of Respondent No.2 situate at Dhule. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Jalgaon. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 are resident of Rajkot (Gujrat State). Learned counsel submits that Applicant No.4 is sister of Rajesh i.e. husband of Respondent No.2. Applicant No.4 got married long back with Applicant No.3. The couple, i.e. Applicant Nos.3 and 4, is residing at Rajkot, Gujrat State, which is far away from Dhule. The counsel further submits that Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are parents of sister-in-law of Rajesh, husband of Respondent No.2. He further submits that the allegations in the F.I.R. as against the Applicants are general in nature without mentioning any specific incident or date. He further submits that even if the allegations in the supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 which was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 5th January 2016 are also general in nature. He submits that the alleged harassment/ill-treatment is for the period from 23rd January 2011 till 24th April 2014, however, the First Information Report has been belatedly lodged in the month of November 2015. In support of his contentions that when the allegations are omnibus without mentioning any specific incident or date and those allegations are made against the relatives who are residing at different places, placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Kailas s/o Damodar Pathe and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2015(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 81, and unreported Judgments of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Girish and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Application No. 2876 of 2016 and Criminal Application No.5915 of 2016 in Criminal Application No.2876 of 2016) decided on 18th January 2017, Vikas and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Application No.5193 of 2016) decided on 27th January 2017, Sumersing and others vs. the State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.471 of 2014) decided on 3rd July 2015. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Application may be allowed.
4. On the other hand learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 invites our attention to the allegations made against the Applicants in the First Information Report and also in the supplementary statement of Respondent No.2 recorded by the Investigating Officer on 5th January 2016. They submit that upon careful perusal of the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement, it is abundantly clear that the ingredients of the alleged offences have been disclosed and therefore needs further investigation so as to take those allegations to the logical end. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 was prosecuting her medical studies at Jalgaon and Applicant Nos.1 and 2 used to call her and then harass and ill-treat her. Therefore, it is submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report and supplementary statement will have to be read as they appear and can be tested only during the trial and hence the Application be rejected.
5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and with their able assistance, perused the grounds take
