Bombay High Court
Arunatara D/O. Ashirwadam Tipric And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 February, 2019
Bench: S.S. Shinde, R.G. Avachat
cra2738.18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2738 OF 2018
1) Arunatara d/o Ashirwadam Tipric,
Age-46 years, Occu:Household,
R/o- 6-10/C, Janaral Wada, Bichkunda,
Bichkunda Nizamabad (Telangana),
2) T. Anita w/o Santosh,
Age-43 years, Occu:Service Teacher
At MP Primary School, Borgaon(P),
Mandal-Mopal, Dist-Nizamabad (Telangana),
R/o-Gautam Nagar, Giriraj College,
Water Tank, Nizamabad (Telangana),
3) Anupama w/o Dr. K. Nagraju,
Age-48 years, Occu:Service as
Chief Executive Officer, Nizamabad,
District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Nizamabad, R/o- Errakunta,
Opp. SBI Branch, Kanteshwar,
Nizamabad (Telangana),
4) Palde Ashajyoti w/o N. Vijay Kumar,
Age-37 years, Occu:Service as teacher,
P.E.T. Z.P.H.S. Mjanik Bhandar,
Mandal-Makloor, R/o-Arundhati Nagar,
Nizamabad (Telangana),
5) Palde Amrata d/o Ashirwadam,
Age-34 years, Occu:Household,
presently R/o-6-10/C, Janaral Wada,
Bichkunda, Bichkunda Nizamabad (Telangana),
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::
cra2738.18
2
6) Rajlaxmi d/o Line Rajayya,
Age-27 years, Occu:Household,
R/o H. No. 7-11-02, Vengalrao Colony,
Nizamabad (Telangana),
7) Reddy Rajaiah s/o Reedy Sri Rajaiah,
Age-47 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Regional Administrator/Manager,
Uttar Pradesh Van Nigam, Gonda,
(Uttar Pradesh),
8) Dr. K. Nagaraju s/o Gangaram,
Age-45 years, Occu:Service, Deputy
Civil Surgeon, Nizamabad (Telangana),
R/o-Errakunta, Opp. SBI Branch,
Kantshwar, Nizamabad (T.S.).
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station,
Dharmabad, Dist-Nanded,
2) Ashwini @ Babita w/o Ravikiran Tirpic,
Age-28 years, Occu:Household,
R/o C/o Laxman Potanna Mangnalikar,
Shankar Ganj, Dharmabad,
Tq-Dharmabad, Dist-Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.U.B. Bilolikar Advocate for Applicants.
Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional P.P. for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. N.S. Kadam Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::
cra2738.18
3
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2019
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the Application to the extent of Applicant No.1 - Aruntara d/o. Ashirwadam Tipric and Applicant No.2 - T. Anita w/o. Santosh, with liberty to file application for discharge before the concerned Court.
2. Leave granted. The Application to the extent of Applicant No.1 - Aruntara d/o. Ashirwadam Tipric and Applicant No.2 - T. Anita w/o. Santosh is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
3. However, we make it clear that liberty granted today will be available to Applicant Nos.1 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 4 and 2 for three weeks from today. In case the Application for discharge is filed within aforesaid period before the concerned Court, the concerned Court to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, however, within six weeks from the date of filing of such application.
4. So far as Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that even if the allegations in the First Information Report (for short "F.I.R.") are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, alleged offences are not disclosed against Applicant Nos.3 to 8. It is further submitted that all the allegations are omnibus in nature and no specific date, time or overt act is attributed qua each of the Applicants. It is submitted that Applicant Nos.3 to 5 are sisters of the husband of the informant, Applicant No.7 is husband of sister-in-law of the informant and ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 5 Applicant No.8 is husband of Applicant No.3, who are residing separately. It is submitted that Applicant No.6 is resident of Nizamabad, and she does not have any relations with the matrimonial family of the informant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Applicant Nos.3 to 8, referring to the amended Application, further submits that during the pendency of this Application, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad, and on the basis of said charge-sheet, the criminal case bearing R.C.C. No.97 of 2018 came to be registered against the Applicants. It is submitted that the entire charge-sheet does not disclose the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 325, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that even if the charge- sheet is read as it is, no offence is made out, and therefore, continuation of criminal ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 6 proceedings of R.C.C. No.97 of 2018 as against Applicant Nos.3 to 8 would be abuse of process of law and therefore the same is liable to be quashed and set aside, to the extent of Applicant Nos.3 to 8. Therefore, relying upon the averments in the Application, grounds taken therein and the annexures thereto, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Application deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, invites our attention to the allegations in the F.I.R., and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and submit that after proper investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad. The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material and on the basis ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 7 of said material the trial can proceed. Therefore, it is submitted that the Application is liable to be rejected.
7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. With their able assistance, we have perused the averments in the Application, annexures thereto and the copy of the charge-sheet which is placed on record.
8. Upon perusal of the contents of the First Information Report, there are general allegations that the Applicants / accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of the informant. It is alleged that on account of said demand, there was ill-treatment to the informant at the hands of the Applicants. It appears that there are ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 8 some specific allegations against Applicant Nos.1 and 2, whose application has already been withdrawn by the counsel appearing for the Applicants.
9. So far as present Applicants i.e. Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, the allegations are omnibus and not constituting alleged offences against them. Applicant Nos.3 to 5 are sisters of the husband of the informant, Applicant No.7 is husband of sister-in-law of the informant and Applicant No.8 is husband of Applicant No.3, who is another sister in law of the informant. It appears that applicant Nos.3 to 8 are residing separately. So far as Applicant No.6 is concerned, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that husband of the informant is having illicit relations with Applicant No.6. So far as Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, there are no specific allegations quoting specific instances of their ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 9 involvement and therefore, further continuation of proceedings of R.C.C. No. 97/2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmabad, will tantamount to abuse of process of law.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband's family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial. In the said Judgment, there is also reference of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V.Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad 2 wherein in para 12 it is observed thus:
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2000) 3 SCC 693 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 10 ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."
11. In view of the discussion made herein above, we are of the opinion that Application of the Applicant Nos.3 to 8 deserves to be allowed.
12. Application of Applicant Nos.3 to 8 is allowed. The further proceedings on the basis of ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 11 the charge sheet in Crime No.132/2018 registered with the Police Station Dharmabad, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings of R.C.C.No. 97 of 2018, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmabad, qua Applicant No.3 - Anupama w/o Dr. K. Nagraju, Application No.4 - Palde Ashajyoti w/o N. Vijay Kumar, Applicant No.5
- Palde Amrata d/o Ashirwadam, Applicant No.6 - Rajlaxmi d/o Line Rajayya, Applicant No.7 - Reddy Rajaiah s/o Reedy Sri Rajaiah and Applicant No.8 - Dr. K. Nagaraju s/o Gangaram, stands quashed and set aside.
13. The Criminal Application is partly allowed and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/FEB19 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::