Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This application is for quashing of F.I.R. being F.I.R. No.0429 of 2017 registered by respondent no.1 on the strength of report lodged by respondent no.2, upon which offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code are registered. Applicant no.1 Nivrutti Datir is cousin and 3 apl915.17.odt applicant no.2 Pankaj Datir is real brother of Vishal Datir, husband of Complainant Shubhangi.

3. To understand the controversy involved in the application, some facts as below are necessary to be stated :

Complainant was married to Vishal Datir on 10.6.2014 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Her husband was working as Police Head Constable attached to Babhulgaon Police Station, District Yavatmal since December, 2014 and was residing with respondent no.2. It is specific case of the applicants that respondent no.2 never resided at Pusad, native place of her husband and with applicant no.2, who is real brother of Vishal Dair since July, 2012 to July, 2015 as he was serving in Gujarat State and from July, 2015 onwards he is working in Saudi Arab in Almaraz Company at Alkharaj Kingdom (Saudi Arebia) and as such, has no occasion to interact with respondent no.2. As such, according to said applicants, since Complainant/respondent no.2 Shubhangi never resided at her matrimonial home at Pusad and as from 2012 onwards, applicant no.2 Pankaj is required to remain out of State since initially was serving at Gujarat and then in Saudi Arabia, there is no occasion for

4 apl915.17.odt respondent no.2 to contact him or in that case, even family members of her husband.

4. So far as applicant no.1, who is teacher by profession and cousin brother of respondent no.2's husband Vishal Datir, it is his case that he is resident of Darwha in his joint family and at no point of time, respondent no.2 had visited them nor since she had at any time cohabited with her husband in their matrimonial home at Pusad, there is no occasion for said applicant to meet her or to provide cruelty to her as alleged.

5. Thus, it is the case of applicants that, for the reasons as aforesaid, there was no occasion for either of these applicants to provide ill-treatment of any kind to the Complainant. However, to their surprise, they learnt of report lodged by respondent no.2 against them alleging demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by her husband, and about ill-intention of applicant no.2, while there are no allegations against applicant no.1.

6. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be allowed thereby quashing of F.I.R. as aforesaid. Respondent no.1 has filed 5 apl915.17.odt affidavit-in-reply on record. Perusal of the same would reveal that it revolves with regards to alleged ill-treatment by husband of Complainant/respondent no.2 to her and of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry from her parents. The reply further reveals of vague allegations against applicant no.2 about his abusing her whenever he used to visit to his native place during Diwali or Summer Vacation. When the affidavit-in-reply was filed on 9.10.2018, investigation was still in progress. However, during pendency of this application, charge-sheet came to be filed. We have perused the documents filed along with the charge-sheet, wherefrom it is revealed that totally vague allegations are made by respondent no.2 in her report which do not attract any of the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of statements of Mohan Sadashiv Pradhan, Police Constable Asif Latif Sheikh, Police Naik Anil Kotrange and Smt. Vijaya Ramesh Yende, all Police Officials residing as neighbours of respondent no.2 at Babhulgaon, in no way, implicate any of the applicants as, according to their statements, they have only named Vishal Datir, husband of respondent no.2.