Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 23529
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
G. A. SANAP, J
Prakashchandra S/o Ghanshyamdas Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 01 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. M. Daga
For the Respondents: H. D. Dubey, R. M. Pande
The court upheld the validity of charges under IPC's Section 498-A demonstrating sufficient prima facie evidence to substantiate claims of domestic violence despite claims of the opposite.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Quashing of Sessions Court judgment - The applicants who are accused in a domestic violence case sought to quash orders that confirmed charges under Section 498-A of the IPC - Courts scrutinized the ‘B’ summary report and confirmed that there exists prima facie evidence to prosecute the accused despite claims of insufficient evidence. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Evidence - The court sustained the findings based on FIR, witness statements, and letters from the informant - Legal scrutiny revealed significant evidence of cruelty and harassment as alleged by the informant satisfied the basic ingredients of the offence. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
Applicants challenged the ruling concerning alleged dowry demands and cruelty from family members following the wedding in 2001 - Non-applicant reported continued harassment including a demand for dowry and physical mistreatment during marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that sufficient prima facie material was available to conclude serious allegations of domestic violence were raised; the ‘B’ summary report dismissal was justified.
Issues: The core issues were whether there was sufficient base to support allegations against accused parties and if proceedings were being misused for counterclaims.
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that mere reliance on the ‘B’ summary report without substantial objection would not suffice to exonerate when ample evidence indicated otherwise.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for quashing judgments based on procedural considerations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts relate to allegations of domestic abuse and dowry demand. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. judgment based on established criteria for evaluating domestic violence claims. (Para 14) |
| 4. insufficient evidence claims rejected; there is substantial prima facie evidence. (Para 16 , 18) |
1. In this criminal application, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), the applicants, who are accused nos.1 and 3, respectively, in Regular Criminal Case No. 268/2006, have prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Revision No. 59/2013 and also the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Gondia. By the order dated 23.04.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.7, Gondia, had rejected the ‘B’ summary report filed by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 272/2002 and took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused nos.1, 3 to 5. The applicants/accused challenged the said order by filing revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gondia. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 21.11.2016 dismissed the revision.
2. Before narrating the facts, it is necessary to state that initially the ‘B’ summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by his order dated 09.08.2006. The revision application filed in the Sessions Court at Gondia against the said order was dismissed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia on 27.01.2009. The applicants had filed criminal application bearing No. 786/2009 before this Court. This Court, by the judgment and order dated 23.10.2012 set aside the order passed in revision by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27.01.2009 as well as the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia dated 09.08.2006. This Court, for the reasons recorded in the order, directed the learned JMFC, Gondia to reconsider the summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration all the facts placed on record. Learned JMFC, Gondia accordingly granted opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed the order as stated above. The said order came to be confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia as stated above.
3. Accused no.2 – Ghanshyamdas died during pendency of the proceeding. The prosecution has, therefore, abated against him. Applicant no.1 is the accused no.1 and husband of the informant.
Applicant no.2 is the accused no.3 and mother-in-law of the informant. Accused nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the informant/non-applicant no.2. Accused nos.4 and 5 have not challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia.
4. Non-applicant no.2 on 08.10.2002 lodged a report at Gondia police station against the accused persons. Applicant no.1/ accused no.1 and non-applicant no.2 got married on 11.02.2001. It is stated in the first information report that after marriage, non-applicant no.2 went to stay at the house of the accused. For initial few months, she was treated well, however after some time, the accused persons started making demand of dowry. It is stated that the accused would tell the informant that sufficient dowry and respect was not paid to them in the marriage. The Gifts and presents received in the marriage were not to their satisfaction. They, therefore, demanded gold ornaments, clothes and cash repeatedly. Brother of the informant met some demands of the accused. He gave one gold ring, chain, mangalsutra, paipatti etc. to the accused after marriage. The accused were not satisfied with this. They extended physical and mental tor
