Bombay High Court
Sweeti Jayesh Bhamare And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:2635-DB
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIKSHA by DIKSHA
DINESH RANE
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DINESH Date:
2025.01.20
RANE 18:50:32
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 3026 OF 2024
MRS. SWEETI JAYESH BHAMARE & ANR. ..PETITIONERS
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR...RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. Jitendralal Gorane a/w. Ms. Vidya Gorane, Mr. Abhijit
Devkhile, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for Respondent No.1- State.
Mr. B. K. Raje, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 14th JANUARY 2025.
JUDGMENT ( PER - RAJESH S.PATIL, J.) :
–
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up
for hearing and disposal.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioners (original accused Nos.4 and 5)
seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 246 of 2023
dated 2nd September, 2023, registered at Kalvan Police Station,
Nashik Rural, at the behest of Respondent No.2, for the offence
Diksha Rane 1 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
3. It is the case of the prosecution that Respondent No.2
(Complainant) and the brother of Petitioner No.1, married as per
Hindu Vedic rites and rituals at Nashik on 12 th August, 2021. The
said marriage was an arranged marriage. It was a second marriage of
both Respondent No.2 and the brother of Petitioner No.1. From the
said wedlock daughter named Lakshmi is born and at present she is
aged 9 months. After the marriage, Respondent No.2 (Complainant)
started residing in her matrimonial home at Nashik. It is alleged in
the complaint that behaviour of all the accused persons who are the
husband and in-laws was not good towards Respondent No.2, since
beginning. The husband of Respondent No.2 used to drink alcohol
regularly and used to physically torture the Complainant on many
occasions. It is further alleged that in-laws of the Complainant used
to support the husband of the Complainant and never took any stand
against the said torture and abuse. Even the basic needs of the
Complainant were not provided. It is further alleged that the accused
used to demand Rs.10 lakhs as dowry for purchasing a luxury car
and it was alleged that if the said demands were not met, they would
Diksha Rane 2 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
not allow the Complainant to enter her matrimonial home. On being
compelled, the Complainant’s father gave an amount of
Rs.8,50,000/- to the husband of the Complainant. Even then the
Complainant’s husband refused to cohabit with her. It is further
alleged that when the Complainant and her parents with her brother
visited her matrimonial home and requested the in-laws to allow the
Complainant to stay in her matrimonial home, the husband of the
Complainant with his family members abused and insulted the
father of the Complainant and refused to take her back to
matrimonial home.
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the
Petitioners that Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of Respondent
No.2/Complainant and Petitioner No.2 is the husband of Petitioner
No.1. The Petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.4 and 5
respectively in the FIR and in the charge-sheet. So also, the
Petitioners are arrayed as the Respondents in the Domestic Violence
complaint. It is the case of the Petitioners in the Petition that there
are no specific allegations in the FIR against the Petitioners, which
will attract the provisions of the Sections mentioned in the FIR. On
a bare reading of the complaint it shows that the only allegation
Diksha Rane 3 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
against the Petitioners is that they are supporting the husband who
used to physically and mentally torture the Complainant, whenever
the Petitioners used to visit the matrimonial home of the
Complainant. The Petitioners are working and residing at Pune,
since their marriage and they visited the parental home of Petitioner
No.1 occasionally. Therefore, there is no occasion when the
Petitioners would ever have tortured the Complainant. The
allegations in the FIR are mostly against the husband of Respondent
No.2 and mother-in-law. No specific date or year of the incident is
mentioned in the complaint. Similarly, in the Domestic Violence
complaint, there are no specific allegations. Further, the Petitioners
are residing at their home in Pune city while Respondent No.2 used
to stay in her matrimonial home at Nashik. No prima facie case is
made out to prosecute the Petitioners even the complaint is
considered on face of it as true and correct. The FIR has been
lodged against the Petitioners with malafide intention to harass the
Petitioners. Hence, the FIR and the R.C.C. case require to be
quashed and set aside as against the Petitioners.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the
Petition and submitted that the perusal of the entire FIR and charge-
Diksha Rane 4 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
sheet would show that there is also ample evidence against the
Petitioners to convict them under the offence under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further
submitted that once charge-sheet is filed, this Court should not
entertain the present Writ Petition.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2
(Complainant) vehemently opposed this Writ Petition. He submitted
that the marriage between Respondent No.2 and brother of
Petitioner No.1 took place during the Covid-19 period. Petitioner
No.1 had delivered a baby girl at her parental home where Petitioner
No.2 being the husband of Petitioner No.1 was also residing. Both
the Petitioners while residing at the matrimonial home of
Respondent No.2 were working from home. At the same time, even
Respondent No.2 was residing in the said home being her
matrimonial house. During the marriage, the parents of Respondent
No.2 had given 15 tolas of gold ornaments. The issue about
whether the domestic violence cases would be covered by civil or
criminal laws, is pending before the Larger Bench and the same
cannot be added/included in the present Petition filed in the criminal
jurisdiction. The mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 along with
Diksha Rane 5 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
Petitioner No.1 in collusion with each other used to torture
Respondent No.2 and used to instigate the husband of Respondent
No.2 to physically abuse Respondent No.2 and used to instigate the
husband of Respondent No.2, to seek more monies from the parents
of Respondent No.2. The summons in both the proceedings were
served on the Petitioners at the matrimonial home of Respondent
No.2 at Nashik. The statements in the FIR are sufficient against the
Petitioners, to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code. He further submitted that the Petitioners should be
directed to face trial and the present Petition which is devoid of
merits, the same be dismissed with costs.
7. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the
parties and the learned A.P.P.
8. The FIR has been registered on the complaint filed by
Respondent No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons including the
Petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos.4 and 5.
Diksha Rane 6 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
9. The alleged statements made against the present
Petitioners in the complaint reads as under :
लग्नानं तर रिरतीरिरवाजानु सार मी माझे सासरी नारि क ये थे
नांदण्यासाठी गे ली असता पती रिजतें द्र रमे सावळा, सासरे
रमे भावराव सावळा, सासु ोभा रमे सावळा, नणं द रि!वटी
जये भामरे , ननं दए जये कौतीक भामरे , मावस सासु अरुणा
अरिभमन रिनकम, माझे नव-याची आत्याबहीण बायजा रिनळकंठ
पगार, मे व्हणा रिनळकंठ पगार, रिमत्र योगे मधु कर रि-कले
अ ाची सु रवाती पासून माझ्या ी वागणु क चां गली नव्हती
आमची रिववाह मराठा व वधु सु चक सं !था मार्फ1त एकमे कांचे
पसं तीने झाले असु न त्यावे ळी लग्नाची बै ठक होती त्यावे ळी माझे
सासरचे लोकांनी मला व माझे आई व-ीलांना सां रिगतले होते की
माझे पती रिजतें द्र यांना कसले व्यसन नसु न ते रिनरव्यसनी आहे त
तसे त ते यु पीएससी, एमपीएससी असे !पधा1 परिरक्षाचे क्लासे स
घे त असु न हे ल्थ इन् ु रनसचे कामे करतात व त्यातु न त्यांना
चां गले उपत्न रिमळते असे बोलु न आम्हाला रिवश्वासात घे वुन
लग्न लावले ले आहे .
माझे सासु व नणद यांना मी सु न म्हणून पसं त नसल्यामु ळे त्या
ने हमी माझ्या रितर!कार करीत असे व मला अपमाना!पद वागणु क
दे वुन माझा छळ करीत असे माझी नणद नणदाई हे माझे सासु
सासरे यांचे ला-के असल्यामु ळे ते जा!त वे ळ माझे सासरी राहत
असे व जे व्हा ही राहत असे ते व्हा माझी सासु व नणद हे सं गणमत
करून माझा छळ करत असे तसे च माझ्या रिवरुध्द माझ्या पतीची
कानभरणी करून मला मारहाण करण्यास व माहे रून रोख रक्कम
आणणे कामी भ-कां वीत असे तसे च माझी मावस सासु अरुणा
अरिभमन रिनकम रिहचे दे खील आमचे वै वाहीक आयु ष्यात आवाजवी
ह!तक्षे पामु ळे तसे च ती जु न्या रिवचाराची असल्यामु ळे ती मला
-्रेस घालु दे ण्यास मनाई करीत असे व याबाबतीत माझे सासु
सासरे व पतीची कानभरणी करीत असे त्यामु ळे माझे पती माझा
अरिधक छळ करीत असे .
10. A bare reading of the complaint shows that there are mere
statements made against the Petitioners. Admittedly, Petitioner No.1
is the married sister of husband of Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2
is the husband of Petitioner No.1, and their matrimonial home is in
Diksha Rane 7 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
Pune City. While the matrimonial home of Respondent No.2 is in
Nashik City. Respondent No.2 (Complainant) has not placed on
record any kind of document to show that Petitioner No.1/sister-in-
law, though married, is residing at her parental house, along with her
husband. The allegations made in the complaint are more specific
against the husband and the mother-in-law of Respondent No.2. The
present Petitioners are the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 and the
husband of sister-in-law.
11. In our view, the fact narrated in the complaint and the
FIR, does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence by
the Petitioners. The allegations against the Petitioners are
insignificant, on the basis of which no prudent person could reach to
a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the
Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 and 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the decision of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1083, has held in paragraph Nos. 12, 14 and 15 has held
as under:-
“12. The contours of the power to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined. In V.
Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC
568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks
Diksha Rane 8 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to
enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the
allegations in the complaint. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P).
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of
2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3- Judge Bench of this Court
elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power
under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed that the power of
quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection
and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being
confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death
penalty. It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court
thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing
and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly,
the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State
of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC
667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It
was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful
and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband’s
close relations, who were living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such
allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184],
this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint,
is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required
to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of
the offence committed by each and every accused and the role
played by each and every accused in the commission of that
offence. These observations were made in the context of a
Diksha Rane 9 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In Abhishek (supra), the application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the in-laws of the
Complainant. Identically in the present proceedings the Petition is
filed by the sister-in-law of the Complainant, along with her
husband. The ratio laid down in Abhishek (supra) will squarely
apply to the present proceedings. In our view, the FIR does not
disclose the commission of any offence, and there is no material to
substantiate the allegations made therein. As per the settled
principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, an FIR can be quashed
if the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute
any offence. The contents of the FIR, read in entirety, fail to meet
the basic ingredients of the offences alleged. Therefore, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will
be abuse of the process of law and warrants interference by this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and the wide powers of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Diksha Rane 10 of 11
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
6.cri.wp 3026-24.odt
13. We find that there is no case in the FIR lodged and the charge-
sheet filed to that effect as against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4
and 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Hence, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
Clause (1b) of the Writ Petition, which reads as under:-
(1b) By issuing appropriate writ/order/direction,
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings
bearing R.C.C. No. 84/2024, pending before the Ld.
Civil Judge Junior Division & JMFC Court, Nashik for
offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506
R/w. 34 of IPC against the present Petitioners.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Diksha Rane 11 of 11
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/01/2025 06:05:31 :::
[ad_1]
Source link