Allowed

Prasad S/O Nilkhant Ganu and Others v. Fthe State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Nov 2016APPLN/5703/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed an FIR registered against the appellant, the sister of the husband, for offences under IPC 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34, finding allegations general and devoid of specific incidents.

What did the court decide?

The FIR bearing C.R. No.0259 of 2016 for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC against applicant no.4 is quashed and set aside.

Prasad S/O Nilkhant Ganu and Others Vs Fthe State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

5703.16appln

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5703 OF 2016

¶6

1.Prasad S/o Nilkhant Ganu
Age : 33 years, Occ : Service,
R/o C/o. Babulal Karale,
Plot No.66, Gajanan Colony,
Aurangabad
At present Plot No. 121,
Datta Prasad Nivas,
Vishvabharati Colony,
Aurangabad.

¶7

2. Smt. Nilambari W/o Nilkhant Ganu Age : 66 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o Plot No. 121, Datta Prasad Nivas, Vishvabharati Colony, Aurangabad.

¶8

3. Nilkhant S/o. Vishwanath Ganu Age : 68 years, Occ : Pensioner, R/o Plot No.121, Datta Prasad Nivas, Vishvabharati Colony, Aurangabad.

¶9

4. Smt. Mugdha W/o. Amol Narke Age : 36 years, Occ : Household, R/o Kothrud, Pune.

¶10

(The application as regards the applicant
nos. 1 to 3 is already rejected as per
the order of Court dated 15th October, 2016)

¶11

..APPLICANTS

¶12

-VERSUS-

¶13

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Home Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶14

5703.16appln

¶15

¶16

2. The Police Inspector, Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶17

3. Shraddha W/o. Prasad Ganu @ Sharddha D/o. Vijay Ranade Age : 25 years, Occ : Service, R/o C/o Babulal Karale, Plot No. 66, Gajanan Colony, Garkheda, Aurangabad.

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

...

¶20

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. R.R. Mane
APP for Respondent/State : D.R. Kale
Advocate for respondent no.3:Mr. S.R. Dheple

¶21

...

¶22

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Dated: November 22, 2016

¶23

PER COURT :-

¶24

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith
and heard finally by consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

2.By order dated 15th October, 2016,
this Court has already rejected the
application in respect of applicant nos. 1 to
3. Therefore, the only application of
applicant no.4 – Smt. Mugdha W/o. Amol Narke
for quashing the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.0259
of 2016 registered with Jawaharnagar Police
Station, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad dated
03.08.2016 for the offences punishable under

¶26

5703.16appln

¶27

¶28

Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, is being considered.

¶29

3.We have carefully perused the
allegations in the First Information Report
against applicant no.4 – Smt. Mugdha W/o.
Amol Narke. The relevant portion of the First
Information Report for the purposes of
deciding the present application is as
under :-

¶30

“ek>h uuan ukes eqX/kk tsOgk vkeps ?kjh vkyh dh] eyk eqyxk Eg.kk;ph rqyk O;oLFkhr Lo;aikd ;sr ukgh- rqÖ;k is{kk ekÖ;k Hkkokl NIiu nqljs LFkGs gksrs vls Eg.kqu okn ?kkywu f'kohxkG djr vls- ”

¶31

“R;kuarj eh ek>s lkljh xsys vlrk ek>s irh ukes 1½ izlkn fuGdaV xkuq] 2½ lklq ukes fuykacjh fuGdaV xkuq] 3½ lkljs fuGdaV xkuq] loZ jk- IykWV ua- 121] nRr izlkn caxyk] t; fo'oHkkjrh dkWyuh] xkj[ksMk] vkSjaxkckn 4½ uuan ukes eqX/kk veksy ukjds] jk- dksFk:M] iq.ks ;kauh ek>k osGksosGh ufou dkj] cqysV] fQzt ?ks.;klkBh iS'kkph ekx.kh d:u 'kkfjjhd o ekufld NG d:u f'kfoxkG d:u ekjgku d:u ftos ekj.;kph /kedh nsowu mik'kh iksVh Bsowu ?kjkckgsj

¶32

5703.16appln

¶33

¶34

gkdywu fnys vkgs eyk txus eqf'dy dsys vlwu R;kpsoj dk;ns'khj dk;Zokgh gks.ksl fouarh vkgs-”

¶35

4.From the above referred portion of
the First Information Report, it appears that
there are general allegations against
applicant no.4 – Smt. Mugdha of demand of
vehicle, Fridge and also money and giving
threats to the informant. Upon considering
the allegations in its entirety as against
present applicant no.4, there is no specific
incident or date mentioned in the First
Information Report. The allegations are
general in nature. The assertion of applicant
no.4 that she is residing at Pune in her
matrimonial home with husband and two
children is also not in dispute. It appears
that applicant no.4, who is sister of the
husband of Prasad, married long back. Even if
the allegations in the First Information
Report as against applicant no.4 are taken at
its face value and read in its entirety,
ingredients of the alleged offences are not
attracted.Furthertheinvestigation/
proceedings on the basis of the said
allegations against applicant no.4 will be
exercise in futility and abuse of the process
of law. In that view of the matter, keeping

¶36

5703.16appln

¶37

¶38

in view the parameters laid down in case of
State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal1, we are
inclined to allow the application of
applicant no.4 – Smt. Mugdha W/o. Amol Narke.
Accordingly the following order :-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i)The F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.0259 of 2016
registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad dated 03.08.2016
for the offences punishable under Section
498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code as regards applicant no.4 – Smt.
Mugdha W/o Amol Narke is quashed and set
aside.

¶41

(ii)Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶42

(iii)The application is allowed in the
above terms and the same stands disposed of.

¶43

(K.K. SONAWANE, J.)

¶44

 (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

¶45

SGA

¶46

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

Prasad S/O Nilkhant Ganu and Others v. Fthe State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad S/O Nilkhant Ganu and Others v. Fthe State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vinod S/O Sanjay Athawale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Ayyub S/O Shaikh Kareem Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nilesh Gulab Mhaske and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sambhaji S/O Sudhakar Deshmukh and Ors.

Prabhakar Pandurang Kochure Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ruksana W/O Nooruddin Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.