SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 1032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S. Patil, J.
Suresh s/o Bajarang Zarekar and Ors. – Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 110 of 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.C. Darandale, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A.R. Kale, APP, Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - After marriage she started co-habiting with her husband – Offence of harassment - Respondent has filed said proceeding inter alia alleging that she was married to son of petitioner is brother of her husband petitioner wife of petitioned married sisters of her husband - It was an inter-caste marriage After marriage she started co habiting with her husband in bungalow owned by petitioner - However since inception petitioners were against marriage - They used to quarrel with her and her husband –Held, Though as laid down in case supra provisions Section Criminal Procedure are applicable even in respect of proceeding instituted Section Act since going by allegations it is case of continuing offence as defined Section Code of Criminal Procedure when as is observed hereinabove domestic violence had continued even till year complaint which is filed in year itself cannot be said to be barred by Section Code of Criminal Procedure - In this respect respondent is entitled to seek benefit from decision in case of Krishna supra - However though complaint as against petitioner is maintainable and there are no sufficient and cogent reasons to quash it as against them case petitioner stands on different footing - Even according to respondent they are married sisters of her husband who are staying with their husband at District Thane respectively since long before her marriage - Merely because they have been named in complaint one cannot comprehend any specific role or part played by them in subjecting her to domestic violence - Bearing in mind usual tendency to rope as may family members as possible as is noticed in case Gupta - State of Jharkhand Supreme Court my considered view petitioner would unnecessarily be put to harassment if they are made to face complaint having not played any crucial and exclusive role in subjecting respondent to domestic violence – Petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

In this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners are seeking to quash a proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2 herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter the D.V. Act) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar bearing Criminal M.A. No. 404 of 2014.

2. The respondent no.2 has filed the said proceeding inter alia alleging that she was married to the son of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on 14.05.2011. The petitioner no. 2 is the brother of her husband, the petitioner no.4 is the wife of the petitioner no.3 and the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are the married sisters of her husband. It was an inter-caste marriage. After the marriage she started co-habiting with her husband in a bungalow owned by the petitioner no.1 at Ahmednagar. However, since inception the petitioners were against the marriage. They used to quarrel with her and her husband. They were insisting her to divorce him. She also narrated several incidents which had occurred on 20.05.2011 and in August-2011 wherein she was allegedly slapped by the petitioner no. 2 and the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 has subjected her to physical and mental torture. She was also beaten by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. She has then alleged that since 10.07.2011 she along with her husband migrated to Aurangabad and even at that time the petitioners were insisting her to bring various domestic articles for setting up the house. Whenever she used to go to the petitioners to their house at Ahmednagar on every week and during festivities they were creating obstructions in the smooth relations between the couple. They were insisting her to bring silver utensils and in spite of all such mental harassment she held patience.

3. She then alleged that her husband had acquired couple of plots and office premises at Aurangabad but the petitioners were pressurizing her husband to transfer those in their names and on that count there used to be a dispute between them and the petitioners. She then alleged that even after the child was born, the harassment continued.

4. On the day of Dussehra dated 13.10.2013 when she along with her husband had gone to the petitioners house at Ahmednagar, on the very next day they started quarreling with her, abused her and driven her out of their house along with her kid. She went to her parents however, her husband tendered apology and requested her to come back for co-habitation. Accordingly, when she went to the house of the petitioner on the next day she was not allowed to enter into the house and on the contrary they tried to snatch away her son. The petitioner no.1 also told her husband to divorce her if he wanted to maintain relations with the petitioners or else to leave the house. It is then alleged that even the petitioners did not allow her to go with her husband to Aurangabad on that day i.e. 14.10.2013 and she had to lodge a complaint with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. It is then averred that on the same day i.e. 14.10.2013 her husband committed suicide by hanging himself at Aurangabad. The petitioners even did not allow her and her relations to even have a last look and were not allowed to attend the funeral.

5. It is then alleged that the petitioner no. 3 filed a complaint with the Aurangabad Police on 15.10.2013 alleging that she had abetted suicide of her husband. While she was making attempts to secure bail, all the domestic articles including an automobike and gold ornaments belonging to her were taken away from her house in Aurangabad. It is also alleged that on 09.01.2014 the petitioner no. 3 also sent her message including a photograph of her husband hanging, only with a view to disturb her psychologically and harass her mentally. Similar messages were subsequently transmitted to her by the petitioner no.3. It is then alleged that she also filed a complaint against the peti





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top