Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
S.S. Shinde, A.M. Dhavale, JJ.
Vanitabai – Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application No. 2360 of 2017
Decided On : 18-09-2017
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of F.I.R.
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.155, S.156, S.157, S.162, S.169, S.170, S.173, S.173(2), S.173(8)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.498(a), S.323, S.504, S.506
Headnote
F.I.R. - Quashing of F.I.R. - Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application by accused Nos. 2 to 8 for quashing of F.I.R. against them, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 2-Saroj, alleging harassment and abuse by her in-laws.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the F.I.R. was not maintainable and quashed the F.I.R. against the applicants.
Issues: The main issues were whether the impugned F.I.R. was maintainable and whether it deserved to be quashed against all or any of the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a second F.I.R. in respect of the same incident is not maintainable and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It also emphasized that lodging of two F.I.Rs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal application, quashed the F.I.R. against the applicants, and clarified that the observations made were only for deciding the present application and shall not be used elsewhere in any other trial against the present applicants or anybody else.
For the Appellant :Mr. Arun S. Shejwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.P.P., Mr. N.D. Sonawane, Advocate
A.M. Dhavale, J.
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally at admission stage.
2. This is an application by accused Nos. 2 to 8 for quashing of F.I.R. against them, registered at C.R. No. 38 of 2017 at Begumpura Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. is lodged by respondent No. 2-Saroj.
3. Respondent No. 2 Saroj married to accused No. 1 Prakash on 25.4.2008 as per Baudha rites at Muddesh Wadgaon, post Manjri, Taluka Gangapur. Applicants No. 1 to 7 are accused Nos. 2 to 8. Accused No. 2 Vanita is mother, accused Nos. 3 Deelip and accused No. 5 Anand are brothers of accused No. 1 Prakash. Accused No. 6 Kalpana is his sister. Accused No. 4 Sunita is wife of accused No. 3 Deelip. Accused No. 7 is married sister Panchasheela. Accused No. 8 is her husband. As per F.I.R., accused nos. 2 to 6 (applicants No. 1 to 5) are residing at Muddesh Wadgaon, Taluka Gangapur, while accused nos. 7 and 8 (applicants no. 6 and 7) are residing at Vaijapur. As per the F.I.R., parents of respondent No. 2 - Saroj spent money in performance of marriage by presentation of household articles etc. to Saroj. At the time of marriage, husband of respondent No. 2 Saroj (Prakash) was serving in a private school. About two months after marriage, it is alleged that Saroj was asked to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents for securing a job for her husband Prakash. Besides, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law's wife were taunting her on the ground that she was unable to cook the food and she was avoiding to work. She gave birth to a male child on 20.4.2009. In September 2010, her husband got employed in C.I.S.F. at Chennai and he alone went to his service place. Respondent No. 2-Saroj along with her child continued to reside at Muddesh Wadgaon along with accused nos. 2 to 6. Thereafter, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, wife of brother-in-law and husband of sister-in-law were demanding money and were abusing her and insulting her on domestic ground and were not providing her food. In 2013, her husband got employed in Artur road Jail at Mumbai. Initially, he was residing alone in Mumbai. Till June 2016, Saroj was at Muddesh Wadgaon and her in-laws had harassed her. In June 2016, her brother-in-law reached her to her husband's house. Thereafter, her husband started subjecting her to cruelty. He was indulging in consuming liquor and was having illicit relations with several ladies. He was telling her that he was not liking her and as he wanted to contract second marriage, she should leave his house. He used to assault and abuse her and used to keep her hungry. He used to talk in obscene language with other ladies in her presence. She had narrated these instances to her parents in personal visits as well as on phone and her maternal relatives tried to persuade her husband and in-laws, but it was of no avail. On 12.10.2016, her husband consumed liquor, raised quarrel with her and assaulted her and threatened to kill her and drove her out. She and her son slept outside the house throughout the night without food. She was constrained to sell her Mangalsutra and came back to her maternal house Nagamthan, Taluka Vaijapur. Her relatives again attempt to persuade her husband and in-laws, but it was of no avail. On 9.1.2017, she gave application to the Woman Redressal Forum in the office of Commissioner, Aurangabad. Her in-laws did not appear there. Hence, she filed F.I.R. to that effect. The crime was registered at C.R.No. 38/2017 and was investigated into.
4. Mr Shejwal, learned Counsel for the applicants argued that the F.I.R. is false and concocted. There was no complaint of whatsoever nature from 2008 till 2016. The allegations against the applicants are vague. Applicants No. 6 and 7 are residing in different town. Respondent No. 2 Saroj was residing with her husband at Mumbai, whereas the applicants were res
