apl 379a.19.doc.

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Criminal Application (APL) No.379/2019

(Mainabai Mhaiskar and others V State of Maharashtra and another)

*******************************************************************************************************************

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders

or directions and Registrar’s orders.

*******************************************************************************************************************

Mr. Y.S. Gorle, Adv for applicants.

Mr. M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant no.1.

CORAM : M.S. SONAK & PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 17-11-2021.

Heard Mr. Y.S. Gorle, learned Counsel for the applicants

and Mr. Khan, learned APP for the non-applicant-State.

2.

This is an application for quashing of chargesheet in RCC

No.794/2007 alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A

of the Indian Penal Code (for Short, ‘

IPC’) by the applicants herein.

The chargesheet inter alia based on the FIR No.22/2007 dated

11-01-2007 at Police Station Civil Lines, Akola.

3.

Mr. Gorle, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that

even if the allegations in the complaint/FIR are taken at their face

value, no offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is made out. He

submits that in any case the allegations are quite vague and contain

no particulars. He submits that most of the applicants do not even

reside with the matrimonial home where the complainant is

apl 379a.19.doc.

2/6

alleged to have been harassed. He submits that the allegations

are mainly against the husband of the complainant and the

applicants, who are the relatives, have been unnecessarily roped

in. Therefore, he submits that this is a fit case that FIR should be

quashed on the consequent chargesheet and also be quashed for

the same reason. He pointed out that after the lodging of the FIR

statement of the complainant was recorded with which the

allegations are restricted against her husband and not against the

present applicants.

4.

The learned APP submits that there are clear and cogent

allegations in the FIR as well as statement recorded in the course of

investigation. The allegations, indeed spell out the ingredients of

Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, this is not a fit case for

exercising extraordinary jurisdiction or invoking inherent powers

to quash the proceeding. He points out that the trial in this case

commenced in the year 2007 itself, and this petition was instituted

in the year 2019 to avoid facing such trial. He therefore submits

that this application may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard rival contentions of the parties and

perused the record.

apl 379a.19.doc.

3/6

6.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the applicants

referred to us the complaint dated 11-01-2007, based on which

the FIR came to be registered. Though he tried to urge the

allegations for demand of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant or

her father was made only by the complainant’s husband, from the

perusal of the complaint we find that specific allegations have been

also made against the present applicants. The allegations against

the present applicants are that they were involved in the

harassment of the complainant and in any case, for inciting the

complainant’s husband to harass her. There are specific allegations

that in February, 2006, the present applicants increased the

demand from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.2 lakh for the reason that the

complainant'

s father had now retired and therefore could possibly

afford to make such payment. The issue at this stage is not

whether such allegations are true or not. But on reading the

complaint/FIR, does not possible to see that the allegations in the

FIR, if taken at their face value do not spell out the ingredients of

Section 498-A of the IPC.

7.

The investigation, also has not restricted the alleged role

of the p