Shashikant, s/o. Veerantappa Gajjari vs State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Awadhootwadi, Dist. - Yavatmal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
VINAY JOSHI, BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Shashikant, s/o. Veerantappa Gajjari and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Awadhootwadi, Dist.- Yavatmal and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 115 Of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Soumitra Paliwal.
For the Respondents: Mr. V.A. Thakare, Mr. Vivek Awchat.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 34 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13 (1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 468, 469, 482 - Harassment of woman to meet any unlawful demand- Quash FIR - Petitioners are praying for quashing of First Information Report – Held, Petitioner Nos.2 to 9, who are admitteldy residing separately and there are no allegations that they visited matrimonial home at Bengaluru during stay of couple together - Therefore, allegations in complaint against petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are clearly omnibus and made only to harass petitioner/husband and his relatives as well as to pressurize them with regard to other proceedings pending between couple – Court is convinced that allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 9 are clearly vague, without giving any specific instances and therefore, on such allegations that too prior to six years back, must be quashed – Court is convinced that FIR lodged against all petitioners on basis of so called complaint of respondent No.2 is clearly an abuse of process of law and therefore, Court is inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Petition succeed.

JUDGMENT :

(Bharat P. Deshpande, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties with consent at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioners are praying for quashing of the First Information Report No.58/2022, dated 24.01.2022, registered at Awadhootwadi Police Station, District – Yavatmal, at the instance of respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.4 is the wife of the petitioner No.3. Petitioner Nos.5, 6, 8 & 9 are the sisters of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.7 is the husband of the petitioner No.6. All the petitioners are residing separately as per the addresses mentioned in the cause title.

4. In order to consider the submissions, thereby praying to quash First Information Report, few facts in nutshell are as under :

5. The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 13.12.2015 at Yavatmal, as per the customs and traditions. The said marriage was also registered with the Registrar of marriages at Bengaluru on 16.04.2016. Petitioner No.1 along with respondent No.2 stayed in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru only for few months. From 01.05.2016 they started residing separately, due to differences amongst themselves. The petitioner No.1 filed a petition for divorce in August 2017 before the Family Court at Bengaluru under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent No.2 approached the Hon’ble Apex Court for transfer of the said petition from Family Court at Bengaluru to the Family Court at Nagpur. After the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter was transferred to the Family Court at Nagpur. Petitioner No.1 also filed proceedings for custody of their child before the District Court at Yavatmal. The said proceedings were also transferred to the Family Court at Nagpur. Efforts were made to settle the dispute by referring it to the Mediator, however, there was no success. Only in January 2022, the petitioners received information that an FIR was registered against them by respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since 2016, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are residing separately and that FIR discloses omnibus allegations which nowhere constitute the ingredients of Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner No.1, specifically and against the other petitioners generally. He submitted that said FIR was lodged only as an arm twisting method, so as to pressurize the petitioner and his relatives to concede the demands of respondent No.2.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are only upto the year 2016 and not thereafter and therefore, the allegations could not have been considered for registering FIR which were clearly time barred. He would submit that even the names of the family members of the petitioner No.1 are wrongly recorded in the FIR which show that respondent No.2 is not aware of the correct names of the family members.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by an e-mail dated 18.12.2016, he informed respondent No.2 that she may take possession of the flat at Bengaluru, which stands in the name of respondent No.2. It is his contention that such FIR has been lodged and registered only to pressurize the family members and the petitioner No.1, since he has filed proceedings for custody of a child and divorce which are pending.

9. The learned APP appearing for the State would submit that allegations made in the FIR constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A against the husband, as well a