Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vasanti Shriram Mainkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2024
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5440 OF 2024
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7529 OF 2024]
VASANTI SHRIRAM MAINKAR & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
The appellants before this Court are husband
(Appellant No. 2), motherinlaw (Appellant No. 1) and
the sisterinlaw (Appellant No. 3) of Respondent No. 2 –
Nandita Mandar Mainkar.
The marriage of Appellant No. 2 and Respondent
No. 2 was solemnized on 09.07.2012 and after some
time, marital discord occurred between the parties. We
have been informed at the Bar that the parties are living
separately since 2016.
In the meanwhile, an FIR has been lodged against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
the appellants on 10.05.2019 under Sections 498, 313,
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.12.24
10:44:00 IST
Reason:
323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the date
2
has an important bearing inasmuch as a few days prior
to that, i.e. on 06.05.2019, the appellant had initiated
Divorce proceedings against the respondent by filing a
suit for Dissolution of Marriage before the Family Court
at Pune. Therefore, apparently, the criminal
proceedings initiated at the hands of the complainant –
wife seems to be nothing but a counterblast to the
Divorce proceedings initiated by the appellant or at
least, it is the immediate cause thereof.
There are allegations in the FIR for commission of
offence under 498, 313 and 323 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, not only against the husband,
but also against the fatherinlaw.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
partly allowed by the High Court vide impugned order
dated 05.09.2023, quashing the proceedings only
against the fatherinlaw. Aggrieved by the impugned
order, the other three appellants have approached this
Court in the present appeal.
One glaring fact which the High Court has not
considered at all in its order dated 05.09.2023 passed
3
in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is that the
FIR itself was lodged after a long delay of more than six
years, particularly under the offence u/s 313 I.P.C.
Section 313 I.P.C. reads as under :
“ 313. Causing miscarriage without
woman’s consent.—
Whoever commits the offence defined in the
last preceding section without the consent
of the woman, whether the woman is quick
with child or not, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.”
However, the available evidence which is already
there in the lis shows that this was not a case of Section
313 I.P.C., but it was an unfortunate case of
miscarriage and medical evidence as well as in the form
of Doctor’s report are available. Moreover, the
inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR is also important.
Regarding other offences viz. Section 498 I.P.C., they are
vague and omnibus and so is the allegation under
Section 323 I.P.C. This is nothing more than an abuse
of process of law at the hands of the respondent. It is
such cases, which require interference by the High
4
Court for exercising its powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings so that the
accused persons do not have to face criminal
proceedings unnecessarily.
Considering the facts and the nature of the case
and the evidence brought on record by the prosecution,
we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that
proceedings ought to be quashed. The criminal
proceedings pending against petitioner under Sections
498, 313, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
before the concerned trial court are hereby quashed.
In view of above, the appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.
……….………………………..J.
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
……….………….……………..J.
[ PRASANNA B. VARALE ]
New Delhi;
DECEMBER 18, 2024.
5
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7529 of 2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05.09.2023
in CRLWP No. 3974/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay)
VASANTI SHRIRAM MAINKAR & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.114635/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.114633/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 18-12-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.
M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Phatak, Adv.
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Kumar Pandey, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link