Allowed

Harshala Vinod Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013APL/154/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the High Court of Bombay quashed a criminal complaint lodged for murder. The Court held that the FIR contained no evidence or suspicion linking the applicant to the offence, making the proceedings an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The FIR registered vide C.R. No. I-60/2012 with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane is hereby quashed qua the Applicant.

Harshala Vinod Ahuja Vs the State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2013)

apl.154.13.doc

SQP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2013

¶5

Harshala Vinod Ahuja ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. H.E. Palwe for Applicant

¶7

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State

¶8

Mr. Chetan Damre for Respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND

¶10

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. RESERVED ON :- JULY 11, 2013 PRONOUNCED ON :- JULY 17, 2013

¶11

ORDER (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J. ) :-

¶12

By this application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of

¶13

Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.'), the Applicant seeks quashing of C.R. No. I-60/2012 lodged with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane. The said FIR/complaint was lodged by the Respondent No.2 – complainant for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC').

1/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

The facts in brief as stated in the FIR/complaint lodged by Rajesh Jawahar Ahuja, Respondent No.2 in a nutshell are stated below.

¶19

The Respondent No.2 – Complainant, is the brother-in-law of the Applicant. He has stated that the Applicant was married to his elder brother Vinod Jawahar in 2004 and they had two children, Ayush aged 6 years and Lakshya aged one month and that a few months prior to the incident, his brother Vinod had moved to Shirdi with his family. On 26^th November, 2012, Vinod had come to Jawahar, where he left his wife (Applicant) along with the two children and went back to Shirdi on the next day for his work.

¶20

One 30^th November, 2012, at about 6 p.m., when the Respondent No.2 came out of his room, the Applicant inquired with him if he had taken her son Lakshya. When the Respondent No.2 stated that he had not taken the child, the Applicant disclosed to him that Lakshya was not at home and that somebody had taken him. The Respondent No.2 and all the family members started searching for Lakshya in the house, but could not be found. Satish, Respondent No.2's brother in pursuit of the

2/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

search went on the terrace of the house and found the dead body of Lakshya floating in the water storage tank on the terrace. Lakshya was immediately taken to the Hospital, where he was declared dead. Pursuant to the same, a complaint came to be lodged by the respondent No.2 with the Jawahar Police Station vide C.R. No. I-60/12 as against an unknown person. He had, however, expressed suspicion on his cousins i.e. Satish Ahuja and Kanchan Roy, as their relations were strained. He had also stated that Satish and Kanchan were residing in the adjoining house and that they shared a common staircase.

¶26

On 5^th December, 2012, Satish Ahuja came to be arrested, in connection with the said offence and was remanded to police custody. The Applicant also came to be arrested on 14^th December, 2012 by the police, as her behaviour was suspicious. On questioning, it is alleged, that she confessed to the police that she had drowned the child in the water tank. The Applicant came to be remanded to police custody and thereafter to magisterial custody. The Applicant, thereafter, preferred an application for bail in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and came to be released on bail.

3/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

In the light of the aforesaid, the Applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of C.R. No. I-60/12 registered with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane.

¶32

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the leaned Counsel for respondent No.2 (original complainant). After going through the FIR and after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for quashing C.R. No. I-60/12 registered with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. qua the Applicant, as there is absolutely no iota of evidence to connect the Applicant to the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶33

We feel it is just and proper to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.¹ , in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out certain categories of cases by way of illustrations, wherein, the inherent power of the Court

¶34

1 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426

4/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

under Section 482 can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the

¶40

Court or to secure the ends of justice. The same reads thus:

¶41

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶42

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶43

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶44

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶45

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶46

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision I the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶47

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

5/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶53

Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind and considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are inclined to quash C.R. No. I- 60/2012 lodged with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane, qua the Applicant, as we find that the FIR/complaint does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence as against the Applicant/accused, who has been arrested in connection for an alleged offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint/FIR, there is not even a whisper of suspicion as against the Applicant. The learned A.P.P. has also very fairly stated that even during investigation, the police have not been able to collect any legally admissible evidence as against the Applicant so as to connect her with the alleged offence. The learned A.P.P. has also tendered before us the case papers of the said case for our perusal and we find that neither the complaint/FIR nor the case papers disclose the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC as against the Applicant. We are of the opinion, that since the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint/FIR, prima facie do not constitute the alleged offence, continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

6/7

SQ Pathan

apl.154.13.doc

In the light of the same, the application deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed accordingly and the FIR registered vide C.R. No. I-60/2012 with the Jawahar Police Station, Thane, qua the Applicant is hereby quashed.

¶59

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶60

(P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶61

7/7

¶62

SQ Pathan

Harshala Vinod Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshala Vinod Ahuja v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Prabhakar Achat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Standard Cahrtered Bank Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas Mohanrao Zhade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod @ Suresh Dashrath Maji Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Shivaji Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Shivaji Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra