Bombay High Court
Vatsala W/O Barku Patil(Nikam) And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 19 September, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:37184-DB
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5543 OF 2021
Dr. Shilpa W/o. Rajendra Boldhane,
Age : 42 years, Occu.:Doctor,
Flat No. B/401, August Home
Society, Ulkanagari, Aurangabad. .....Petitioner
(Orig. Accused)
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Chavani Police Station, Malegaon,
Taluka-Malegaon, District-Nashik.
(Copy to be served on P.P.
High Court Bombay).
2. Dr. Velantina W/o. Kiran Patil (Nikam), (Orig. Complt.)
Age : 38 years, Occ.:Doctor (Dentist),
R/o. Sukhakarata Hospital, In front of
Kakaji Masale, Malegaon, Taluka-Malegaon,
District-Nashik. .....Respondents
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta i/b Mahesh H. Chandanshiv
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
None present for Respondent No. 2.
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5545 OF 2021
1. Vatsala W/o. Barku Patil (Nikam),
Age : 63 years, Occu.:Pensioner,
R/o. Parijat Housing Society,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
2. Jayashree W/o. Yashwant Suryawanshi,
Age : 44 years, Occu.:Household,
R/o. Arjun Sagar Road, Kathare Digger,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 :::
sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
3. Yashwant S/o. Nagu Suryawanshi,
Age : 50 years, Occu.:Teacher,
R/o. Arjun Sagar Road, Kathare Digger,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik.
4. Hemant S/o. Barku Patil (Nikam),
Age : 38 years, Occu.:Engineer,
R/o. Maharshi Row House-3, Gamne Mala,
Makhamalabad Nashik,
Taluka-Satana, District-Nashik. .....Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Chavani Police Station, Malegaon,Barku Patil
Taluka-Malegaon, District-Nashik.
(Through its Public Prosecutor
Bombay High Court, Mumbai).
2. Dr. Velantina W/o. Kiran Patil (Nikam), (Orig. Complt.)
Age : 38 years, Occ.:Doctor (Dentist),
R/o. Sukhakarata Hospital, In front of
Kakaji Masale, Taluka-Malegaon,
District-Nashik. .....Respondents
Mr. Mahesh Chandanshiv (Through V.C.) for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
None present for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th SEPTEMBER 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 19th SEPTEMBER 2024.
JUDGMENT:- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1) The Petitioners in both the Petitions seek quashing of criminal proceedings bearing RCC No.308 of 2023 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon, Nashik culminating from C.R.No.269 2/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc of 2021 registered with Chhavani Police Station, Malegaon for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2) Both the Petitions were admitted by Order dated 30 th June 2023 passed by this Court.
3) The facts in brief are as follows: 3.1) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5543 of 2021 is stated to be a
woman friend of the Respondent No.2's husband namely, Kiran Patil. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2021 are the mother-in-law of the Respondent No.2 and other relatives of Kiran Patil. It is the allegation of the Respondent No.2 that, she married Dr. Kiran Patil on 22 nd February 2007 at Malegaon. There are two issues of the said marriage, namely, daughter Khyati aged about 12 years and son namely, Vihan aged about 10 years. 3.2) It is alleged that, the husband of the Respondent No.2 and his relatives treated the Respondent No.2 with cruelty. Respondent No.2's father had given an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and 50 tolas of gold as dowry. After the marriage, she realised that, her husband had extra-marital relations with Dr. Shilpa, the Petitioner in the former Petition. He used to tell her that, he did not want to marry her but was compelled to do so since she did not have a brother and her parents property would devolve upon her. He used to abuse her and beat her on trivial matters. He used to constantly demand divorce from her.
3.3) It is alleged that, whenever she informed her husband's 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc
relatives regarding the cruelty, they also advised her to divorce him. It is also alleged that, she had caught her husband chatting on the phone with the said Dr. Shilpa and exchanging love talks with each other. She saw some insurance papers which made her believe that, her husband intended to cause her harm and claim insurance money. She was very frightened of him. The abuses continued and she was even required to be hospitalised on one occasion. Due to this ill-treatment at the hands of her husband, Dr. Shilpa and his other relatives, she filed the impugned FIR.
4) Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned counsel appears for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5543 of 2021 and Mr. Mahesh Chandanshiv learned counsel appears for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2021. Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP represents the State. None appeared for the Respondent No.2 despite service being complete.
5) In so far as Dr. Shilpa is concerned, she is admittedly stated to be a woman friend of Kiran Patil, i.e, Respondent No.2's husband. As is settled law by the Supreme Court, in the matter of Sunita Jha v. State of Jharkhand1 following its decision, in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police & Anr.2, a woman friend of the husband does not fall in the category of the 'relative of the husband of a woman' as contemplated in Section 498- A of the IPC. It is clear and unambiguous that only the husband or his relative can be proceeded against under the said provision for subjecting the wife to cruelty, which is specifically defined in the Explanation to 1 (2010) 10 SCC 190 2 (2009) 6 SCC 757 4/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc Section 498-A of the IPC. In view of this settled position of law, we have no hesitation in holding that no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR against Dr. Shilpa.
6) In so far as the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5545 of 2021 are concerned, undoubtedly they are relatives of Respondent No.2's husband Kiran Patil. However, a plain but careful reading of the FIR does not demonstrate any act attributable to the Petitioners that constitute the offences as alleged. The allegations in the FIR against the relatives of Kiran Patil are omnibus, general and vague. The allegations are clearly attributed only to Respondent No.2's husband Kiran Patil.
7) The Supreme court in its decision in the matter of Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P.3 held as under:
"14......A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses' and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima-facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offenses alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offenses.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 1 SCR 558; (2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the
3 (2024) INSC 101 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in- laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law."
8) The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Other4 held as under:
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few--Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri.) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995)6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996)5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996)8 SCC 164 :
1996 SCC (Cri.) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999)3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri.) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000)4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri.) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001)8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri.) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005)1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri.)
4 (2006) 6 SCC 736 6/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A Complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the Complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima-facie constitute any offense or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the Complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry, nor a meticulous analysis of the material or an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the Complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a Complaint.
(ii) A Complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) .......
(v)........."
9) After examining the contents of the FIR and the charge-sheet, we have no hesitation in holding that neither of the documents discloses commission of any cognizable offence. In view of the facts of the case and 7/8 ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 ::: sns 2-wp-5545-2021.doc the settled position of law, we are inclined to quash the FIR and charge- sheet qua the Petitioners in both the Petitions. We hasten to add that allegations made against the husband of the Respondent No.2 namely, Kiran Patil disclose commission of the offences as alleged and the criminal proceedings against Kiran Patil are permitted to continue.
10) Criminal proceedings bearing RCC No.308 of 2023 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon, Nashik arising out of charge sheet no.14 of 2023 dated 6 th April 2023 culminating from C.R.No.269 of 2021 registered with Chhavani Police Station, Malegaon are quashed and set aside qua the Petitioners in present proceedings.
11) Rule is made accordingly made absolute.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2024.09.19
18:54:52
+0530
8/8
::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 05:45:54 :::