Allowed

Shobjharaj S/O Tarachand Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2016APPLN/3878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application challenging an FIR registered for offences under sections 498A and 323 IPC, the High Court held that the alleged ill-treatment was stated in general terms without specific incidents or dates. The Court found continuing investigation to be an abuse of process and allowed the application to quash the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application under Criminal Application No. 3878 of 2016 was allowed; the FIR Crime No. I-49/2016 was quashed and set aside.

Shobjharaj S/O Tarachand Chavan and Others Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3878 OF 2016

¶3

1. Shobharaj s/o Tarachand Chavan, Age : 30 years, Occu. Service, R/o S.R.P.F. Quarter, Old Line, Taluka and District Jalna

¶4

2. Sangita s/o Shobhraj Chavan, Age : 29 years, Occu. Service, R/o Tahasil Karyalaya Samor, Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur

¶5

3. Annapurna s/o Tarachand Chavan, Age : 54 years, Occu. Household, R/o S.R.P.F. Quarter, Old line, Taluka and District Jalna

¶6

4. Sou. Mamata w/o Arjun Rathod, Age : 33 years, Occu. Household, R/o Plot No. 1/P-2-143, Sainath Nagar, Beed Bypass, Aurangabad

¶7

APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Incharge, Police Station, Gondi, Taluka and District Jalna

¶10

2. Varsha Prathviraj Chavan, Age : years, Occu. Household, R/o Vadikodri, Tq. Ambad, District Aurangabad

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. Ramchandra S. Patil, Advocate for the applicants
Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State
Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶13

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 4th October, 2016

¶15

criapln3878-2016

¶16

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With

¶19

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
heard finally.

¶20

2.By this application, the applicants take
exception to the FIR bearing Crime No. I-49/2016,
registered with Police Station, Gondi, District Jalna,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the applicants submits
that applicant No. 1 is in the employment of the State
Government, serving at Jalna. Applicant No. 2 is the
wife of applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 3 is the mother
of applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 4 is the sister-in-
law of the informant. It is submitted that all the
applicants are residing at different places away from
the matrimonial home. Respondent No. 2 – Prithviraj
resides at Paithan. It is submitted that there are no
specific allegations against each of the applicants. No
specific incidents are quoted nor the dates, if any of

¶22

3 criapln3878-2016

¶23

the incidents alleged are mentioned in the FIR. It is

¶24

stated in the FIR that respondent No. 1 was treated
properly for three years from the date of marriage and
thereafter, the husband of the applicants and the
applicants started illtreating her. However in Hindu
Marriage Petition (H.M.P.) No. A-450/2015 and
application No. A-138/2016, which are filed by
respondent No. 2 for restitution of conjugal rights and
for diverse and maintenance, respectively, it is stated
that she was treated properly for fifteen days and
thereafter, the husband started illtreating her.
According to the learned counsel for the applicants,
even if the allegations in the FIR are read in their
entirety, no offence is constituted against the
applicants. He, therefore, prays that the application
may be allowed.

¶25

4.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.,

¶26

representing the State and the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No. 2 jointly submit that the allegations
in the FIR do disclose the offences against the
applicants. They submit that the investigation is
necessary to be carried out. The learned counsel for

¶27

4 criapln3878-2016

¶28

respondent No. 2 submits that applicant No. 3 is the

¶29

mother-in-law and because of the instigation by the
applicants, the husband of the informant (respondent No.
2) illtreated her.

¶30

5.We have considered the submissions of the

¶31

learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P. and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. We
have carefully perused the contents in the FIR. In the

¶32

entire FIR, there is no mention of any specific incident
of illtreatment to the informant at the hands of the

¶33

applicants or specific date or specific overtact
attributed to the applicants. The allegations in the
FIR are general in nature and if the investigation and
the further proceedings in pursuance thereto are allowed
to be proceeded with on the basis of such allegations,

¶34

it would be an abuse of the process of law. Apart
therefrom, it appears that the different versions about
the illtreatment have been stated by respondent No. 2 in
her petition for restitution of conjugal rights and in
the application filed by her for grant of divorce and
maintenance. In paragraph No. 6 of the Hindu Marriage
Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it is

¶35

5 criapln3878-2016

¶36

stated that respondent No. 2 was residing with her

¶37

husband at Jaikwadi, Paithan till 3rd July, 2015.
Considering the facts on record and the foregoing
discussion, the FIR against the present applicants is
liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the
following order:-

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

(i)The criminal application is allowed.

¶40

(ii)The FIR bearing Crime No. I-49/2016, filed
against the present applicants, registered with
Police Station, Gondi, District Jalna, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

¶41

504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

¶42

Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.

¶43

npj/criapln3878-2016

Shobjharaj S/O Tarachand Chavan and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobjharaj S/O Tarachand Chavan and Others 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

Dipak Dagdu Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nikita W/O Akhilesh Soni and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh S/O Narayan Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Jaganath Zalani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kaduba @ Ravindra S/O Sahebrao Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kisan @Kirshana Pandurang Dongare Vs the State of Maharashtra