Bombay High Court
Arjun Suryabhan Rathod And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 3 November, 2020
Author: Shrikant D. Kulkarni
Bench: T. V. Nalawade, Shrikant D. Kulkarni
1 24-CriA-1919-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1919 OF 2020
1. Arjun Suryabhan Rathod,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agriculutre,
R/o. Ghanal Tanda, Tal. Parli, Dist. Beed.
2 Janabai Suryabhan Rathod,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Since 15 years residing in other house in
same village as applicant No.1.
3. Suryabhan Sitaram Rathod,
Age : 76 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. As above.
4. Baliram Suryabhan Rathod,
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o. Govardhan Tanda, Tal. Parli (Vaijnath)
Dist. Beed.
5. Anjanabai Suryakant Pawar,
Age : 41 years, Occu. Houewife,
R/o. Sirsala, Tal. Parali (Vaijnath)
Dist. Beed. .. APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through In-charge Police Station Officer,
Pathri Police Station,
Tal. And District Parbhani.
2. Sunita Arjun Rathod,
Age Kansur (Tanda), Tal. Pathri,
Dist. Parbhani 431 506. .. RESPONDENTS
...
Smt. Tanvi V. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1
...
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 3rd NOVEMBER, 2020 PER COURT :-
Present proceding is filed for the relief of quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 0384 of 2020 registered at Pathri Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2020 23:10:55 :::
2 24-CriA-1919-20.odt
2. Learned counsel for the applicants wants interim relief in the matter and so she was asked to make out a case for admission purpose.
3. A crime is regisgtered on the basis of report given by informant- respondent No.2 - Sunita Arjun Rathod. Applicant No.1-Arjun is husband of the informant, applicants No. 2 and 3 are parents of Arjun, applicant No. 4 is brother of the husband and applicant No.5 is sister of the husband.
4. In the FIR, it is contention of the informant that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1-Arjun prior to 20 years of the date of FIR and she has three issues from him. It is the contention that till one year prior to the date of FIR, there was no problem, but from about one year, the husband and his aforesaid relatives started harassing informant by asking her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- from the house of her parents. It is the contention that applicants started to harass and they started saying that they would drive out her from matrimonial house, if amount is not brought. It is her contention that they were starving her and they harassed her both mentally and physically. It is the contention that her parents are poor and they could not meet the demand of present applicants. It is contended that due to harassment, she was required to leave her matrimonial house with two issues and for about nine months she is living at other place with her parents. It is contended that applicants were giving threat of life to her and so she first approached to Grievance Redressal Forum created for Women. It is contended that before this Forum, the dispute was not settled and she was advised to approach the Police. In the report, she made allegations against all the ::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2020 23:10:55 ::: 3 24-CriA-1919-20.odt applicants that they had harassed and ill-treated her for about one year and that ill-treatment was on account of illegal demand of money.
5. There is specific allegation against all the applicants that they were living together in the house, where the informant cohabited with applicant No.1. The alleagtions of ill-treatment are also made. In view of this circumstance, this Court asked learned counsel for the applicants to show that some of the applicants, at least applicant No. 5 is living separate from applicant No.1. No such record is produced though different address of applicant No.5 is given in this application. Learned counsel for the applicants tried to show to this Court statements recorded before Grievance Redressal Committee. Such statements cannot be considred as that attempt was made to settle the dispute through mediation.
6. There is no explanation with applicants as to why respondetn No.2 requird to live separate from husband after cohabitation about 20 years. As there are specific allegations, which are sufficient to make out prima facie case for the offence of cruelty made punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, this Court holds that it is not desirable to issue notice against respondent No.2. She may not be able to come to the court and she may not be able to spend money for litigation. In the result, Criminal Application stands dismissed.
Sd./- Sd./-
[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI ] [ T. V. NALAWADE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
MTK
::: Uploaded on - 05/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2020 23:10:55 :::