Bombay High Court
Kamalbai Mangal Pawar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2020
Author: M.G. Sewlikar
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
1 criapplnno3511.19-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3511 OF 2019
1) Kamalbai Mangal Pawar,
Age;51 Yrs, Occ; Household,
2) Mangal Dhaku Pawar,
Age; 56 yrs, Occ; Business,
3) Avinash Mangal pawar,
Age; 31 yrs, Occ; Business,
All above are residents of
H. No. 142, Priyadarshani
Nagar, Nagaon Bari, Mumbai
Agra Road, Near Maroti
Mandir, Deopur, Dhule.
Taluka and District Dhule.
4) Sonali Satish Salunkhe,
Age; 33 years, Occ;
Service,
5) Satish Sardar Salunkhe,
Age; 37 years, Occ;
Service, Applicant Nos. 4
and 5 are residents of
Lane No. 2, Room No. 9,
Near Central Bus Stand,
Police Head Quarter, Dhule
Taluka and District Dhule.
6) Bharati Sanjay Salunke,
Age; 25 years, Occ;
Service,
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 :::
2 criapplnno3511.19-J
7) Sanjay Sardar Salunkhe,
Age; 35 years, Occ;
Service,
Applicant Nos. 6 & 7 are
residents of Mahindale
Shivar, 500, Quarter
Building No. G/3, Room No.
3, Dhule, Taluka and
District Dhule.
8) Siddharth Mangal Pawar,
Age;29 years, Occ; Business
& Education.
9) Priti Mangal Pawar,
Age; 25 years, Occ;
Education,
Applicant Nos. 8 and 9 are
residents of H. No. 142,
Priyadarshani Nagar, Nagaon
Bari, Mumbai Agra Road,
Near Maroti Mandir, Deopur,
Dhule, Taluka and District ...Applicants
Dhule. (Orig. Accused)
V E R S U S
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through; Shinkheda Police
Station,
Tq. Shinkheda, District
Dhule.
2) Hemlata Avinash Pawar,
Age; 24 years, Occ; Nil,
C/o; Jirabai Khushal Rane,
Gurukrupa Colony,
Shindkheda, Tq.Shinkheda, ...Respondents
District Dhule. (Resp. No. 2-
Orig.Informant)
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 :::
3 criapplnno3511.19-J
.................................................
Mr.C.V.Bhadare h/f Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate
for the Applicants
Mr. D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.
1/State
Mr.P.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
.................................................
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2020
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] :
This is an application for quashing of the First Information Report (In short "F.I.R.") in Crime No. 14 of 2018, registered at Police Station, Shindkheda, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (In short 'I.P.C.')
2. Facts giving rise to this application are as under :
That respondent No. 2 is the wife of applicant No. 3. Applicant No. 1 is the mother, applicant No. 2 is the father of applicant No. ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 ::: 4 criapplnno3511.19-J
3. Applicant No. 4 and applicant No. 6 are the married sisters of the applicant No. 3. Applicant No. 5 is the husband of the applicant No. 4. Applicant No. 7 is the husband of applicant No. 6. Applicant No. 8 is un-married brother and applicant No. 9 is the un-married sister of the applicant No. 3.
4. Respondent No. 2 married applicant No. 3 on 3.1.02016. She was maintained well for the period of 15 days after the marriage. Thereafter, all the applicants started ill- treating her by saying that she is not good looking and she is a bad cook. Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 ill-treated her doubting her chastity. Thereafter, all the applicants started demanding Rs. Five lacs to be brought from her parents. The gold of Five Tolas, which was gifted to her in her marriage, was sold by applicant No. 3. She had filed an application before the Women Redressel Cell on 31.10.2017, but it did not yield any result. Therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 ::: 5 criapplnno3511.19-J she has lodged this report against the applicants.
5. Heard, Mr. C.V.Bhadare h/f Mr. Amol S. Sawant, learned counsel for the Applicants, Mr. D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1/State and Mr.P.B. Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 (appointed).
6. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for applicants sought permission to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Permission was accorded to him.
7. So far as applicant Nos. 4 to 9 are concerned, the allegations against them are general in nature. Applicant NO. 5 has separate ration card, which shows that he is not residing with the applicants. Applicant Nos. 6 and 7 are also not residing with applicant Nos. 1 to 3. Applicant No. 8 has business at Dhule. ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 :::
6 criapplnno3511.19-J Allegations against them are general in nature. Their case squarely falls under the categories of the State of Haryana and Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors; AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 and Preeti Gupta and Anr. V/s. State of Jharkhand and Anr.; (2010) 7 Supreme Court 667.
8. It is settled law that on the basis of un-controverted allegations if the commission of cognizable offence is not disclosed, the F.I.R. will have to be quashed. Otherwise, it would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. The allegations against applicant Nos. 4 to 9 are general in nature. Even if, they are accetped at their face value, the commission of cognizable offence would not be made out. Having regard to the vague and general allegations, it cannot be said that the commission of a coginzable offence is made out. In this view of the matter, following order is passed :
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 :::
7 criapplnno3511.19-J ORDER 1. Application of applicant Nos. 1 to 3 is disposed of as withdrawn.2. Application of applicant Nos. 4 to 9
is allowed.
3. Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (A).
4. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) mahajansb/ ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2020 17:10:29 :::