Bombay High Court
Vijay Chandrasen Chauhan And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 27 September, 2017
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, M. G. Giratkar
2109APL105.17-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 105 OF 2017
APPLICANTS :- 1. Vijay Chandrasen Chauhan, Age about 29
yrs., Occ. Service,
2. Chandrasen Narayan Chauhan, Age 55 yrs.,
Occ. Service,
3. Kalpana Chandrasen Chauhan, Age about 50
yrs., Occ. Housewife,
4. Sau. Surekha Dinkar Malve, Age about 34
yrs., Occ. Service,
All the above applicants residing at
Ramkrushna Nagar, Tembhurkhed Road,
Varud, Tq. Varud, Distt. Amravati.
5. Sau. Yogita Gopal Malve, Age about 32 yrs.,
Occ. Housewife, r/o. Vitthal Nagar, Mothi
Umbri, Akola, tq. & Distt. Akola.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Police Station Dabki
Road, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
2. Sau.Sonal Vijay Chauhan, Aged about 23
yrs., Occ. Housewife, r/o c/o Nagorav
Maroti Rathod, Dabki Road, Nagar, Akola,
tq.& Distt. Akola.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.P. S. Gawai & Mr.Piyush Girdekar, counsel for the applicants.
Mr.A. M. Joshi, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1.
Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the non-applicant No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 :::
2109APL105.17-Judgment 2/6
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
M. G. GIRATKAR
, JJ.
DATED : 27.09.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per : Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) The criminal application is admitted and heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this criminal application, the applicants, who are the husband and the in-laws of the non-applicant No.2 have sought the quashing and setting aside of the first information report lodged against them for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.
3. Shri Gawai, the learned counsel for the applicants, fairly states that the applicant Nos.1 to 3 would not press the prayer made in the application and the prayer made in the application should be considered only in respect of the applicant Nos.4 and 5. It is stated on behalf of the applicant Nos.4 and 5 that even if the allegations made against the applicant Nos.4 and 5, who are the sisters of the husband of the non-applicant No.2, are accepted at their face value and in the ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 ::: 2109APL105.17-Judgment 3/6 entirety, an offence under sections 498-A and 506 of the Penal Code cannot be prima facie made out against them. It is submitted that a general allegation is made in the report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 that the applicant No.4 Surekha and the father and mother-in-law of the non-applicant No.2 used to harass the non-applicant No.2 mentally when the applicant No.1 was absent in the matrimonial home. It is stated that against the applicant No.5 it is alleged that though she was residing at Akola, she used to call the applicant No.1 viz. the husband of the non-applicant No.2 and instigate him to harass the non- applicant No.2 and to dissolve the matrimonial ties. It is stated that it is alleged against the applicant No.5 that she used to ask the applicant No.1 to demand money from the non-applicant No.2 and behave badly with her so that she would leave the matrimonial house. It is stated that even if the said allegations are accepted at their face value and in the entirety, the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code cannot be prima facie made out against the applicant Nos.4 and 5.
4. Shri Tembhare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1, submitted that serious allegations are levelled against the applicant Nos.1 to 3 and though the applicant No.5 was residing at Akola, she used to instigate the applicant No.1 to ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 ::: 2109APL105.17-Judgment 4/6 behave badly with the non-applicant No.2 so that she should leave the matrimonial home. It is submitted that on the basis of the allegations made by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 that they used to harass the non-applicant No.2, the first information report was registered.
5. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2, submitted that the applicant Nos.4 and 5 always used to harass the non-applicant No.2. It is stated that though specific allegations are not made against the applicant No.4, on the basis of the general allegations made against the applicant Nos.2 to 5, the non-applicant No.1 has rightly registered the first information report against the applicant Nos.4 and 5. It is submitted that the applicant Nos.4 and 5 always used to interfere in the affairs of the applicant No.1 and the non- applicant No.2 and used to force the applicant No.1 to dissolve the marriage between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2.
6. On a reading of the allegations in the first information report, it appears that specific allegations are not made against the applicant Nos.4 and 5, for registering a first information report against them for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code. A general allegation is made against the applicant No.4 ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 ::: 2109APL105.17-Judgment 5/6 that when the applicant No.1 was not present in the house, the applicant Nos.2 to 5 used to mentally harass the non-applicant No.2. A general statement is again made against the applicant No.5, who is not a resident of Varud, where the matrimonial home is situated, that she used to call the applicant No.1 viz. the husband of the non-applicant No.2 and instigate him to behave badly with the non-applicant No.2 so that the non-applicant No.2 should leave the matrimonial home and the marriage ties between them are broken. Even if we assume that the applicant No.5 was calling the applicant No.1 and was instigating him to behave badly with the non-applicant No.2, it would not be "cruelty" as is defined under section 498-A of the Penal Code. Every act of cruelty, inflicted by the husband or his relatives would not be cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the Penal Code. Only if the acts of cruelty are inflicted with a view to demand money or any valuable security, the ingredients of section 498-A could be made out. Also, if the acts of cruelty are such that the complainant is driven to such a position that she is compelled to commit suicide, the said acts could be termed as 'cruelty' within the meaning of section 498-A of the Penal Code. The allegations made against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 are not of the aforesaid nature. In the circumstances of the case, the first information report registered against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 needs to be quashed and set aside, more so, since we find that when nothing was ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 ::: 2109APL105.17-Judgment 6/6 not well between the applicant No.1 and the non-applicant No.2, general allegations are made against the sisters of the applicant No.1 in the report lodged with the non-applicant No.1.
7. In the result, the criminal application is partly allowed. The first information report registered against the applicant Nos.4 and 5 is quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:35:41 :::