Dismissed

Bharat C. Somani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2014APL/1026/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a criminal application seeking quashing of an FIR registered under sections 498A, 406 and 34 of IPC. The court held that prima facie the complaint constituted an offence and rejected submissions relying on emails to disprove allegations. The application was dismissed, and an interim stay was declined.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; FIR and charge-sheet not quashed; request for extension of stay declined.

Bharat C. Somani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2014)

(APL 1026 of 2013 )

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1026 OF 2013

¶5

Bharat C. Somani & Ors.

¶6

...Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr.Narendra L. Jain i/b. Mr. Pankaj Vishnu Dahibawkar for Applicants Mr. Shreepad Murthy a/w. Ms. Shobha Mehra i/b. Shobha Pawar for Respondent No.2

¶12

Mr.J.P. Yagnik -APP for the State

¶13

¶14

CORAM : V. M. KANADE , & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2

¶18

This criminal application is filed by the Applicants under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint filed by Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under section 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

It is submitted that from the documentary evidence and material which is on record viz. Emails sent by Respondent No.2 to her parents within a short period, after the marriage clearly falsify the averments, which are made by her in the FIR. Reliance was also placed on the other emails and the documents sent by Applicant No.2 prior to the marriage to show that the Applicants never required any

1/4

(APL 1026 of 2013 )

financial assistance. It is submitted that the FIR has been registered at Thane and the Investigating Officer, who are joining hands with the Complainant -Respondent No.2 have improperly investigated the case and charge-sheet has been filed on account of the influence of Respondent No.2 and her parents and without considering the reply. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants has taken us through the FIR and submitted that even after the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value, no case is made out under section 498A of IPC much-less case under section 406 is made out.

¶24

We are unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. It is well settled position in law that that at the stage of quashing of FIR or chargesheet, the material which is on record, annexed to the application has to be taken into consideration to find out if the material at its face value would constitute an offence. After perusing the FIR, which has been filed by Respondent No.2, we are satisfied that, prima facie, all the averments which are made in the complaint constitute the ingredients of offence punishable under section 498A, 406 r/w. 34 of IPC. So far as emails are concerned, at this stage, it is not possible to look into the emails which were sent by Applicant No.2, prior to the marriage to Respondent No.2's parents and similarly, Respondent No.2 to her parents after the marriage, also cannot be said to be the circumstances which indicate that she was looked after properly by the Applicants. It is quite well settled now that women in India normally do not like to share the trouble faced by them at the house of the husband and at the behest of the in-laws to their parents and suffering in silent on the fond hope that one day the husband and his parents would improve their behaviour and would treat the newly wedded

2/4

(APL 1026 of 2013 )

wife properly and, as such, therefore, merely these emails by themselves cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the averments made by her in her complaint are false. It was also submitted that false complaints have been filed to extract money from the Applicants.

¶29

Our attention is also invited to the various judgments passed by the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has made certain observations about false complaints being filed under section 498A. It is true that the Apex Court has made those observations, however, the said observations shall ready in the context in which they are made.

¶30

We are, therefore, unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. We are also urged that the Applicants are staying at Ahmedabad and will have to face the trial by coming to Thane. We are of the view that the Applicants can definitely make an application before the Trial Court, seeking exemption of their appearance before commencement of the trial. Apart from all that, the Applicants have an alternate remedy of filing an application for discharge before the Trial Court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet which has been filed. We are informed that the Applicant No.5 is the married sister of Applicant No.1 – husband and she is settled in Dubai. The Applicant No.5 may file an application for discharge. If such an application is filed, the same may be heard and decided on merits and in accordance with law and, in any case, within twelve weeks.

3/4

(APL 1026 of 2013 )

Vaishali Tikam

With these directions, the criminal application is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants seeks extension of stay. Request for extension is declined.

¶36

[P.D. KODE,J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶37

4/4

Bharat C. Somani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat C. Somani and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowardhan Jagannath Chavarepatil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Seema Dattatraya Phuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Ram Son of Shankar Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Raghunath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mukul Suryakan Gujar Vs the Cheif Election Commissioner and 3 Others

Suhasini Sukhdeo Kanade Vs Mugdha Mangesh Pangam and 2 Ors.