Dismissed

Arvind S/O. Pyarelal Jain and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2016WP/438/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashment of an FIR alleging dowry harassment under IPC 498-A and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Court rejected the petition, noting specific allegations disclosed a prima facie case and principles from cited Supreme Court precedents indicate such matters require regular trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Writ Petition NO. 438 of 2016 stands rejected; FIR quashed; proceedings not to be influenced by these observations.

Arvind S/O. Pyarelal Jain and Anr. Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 438 OF 2016

¶5

1. Arvind s/o. Pyarelal Jain Age – 54 Years, Occ – Service R/o. 43, Mahaveer Colony, Behind Malaria Office, Sakri Road, Dhule, District – Dhule.

¶6

2.Smt. Sarita w/o. Arvind Jain
Age – 50 years, Occ – Household
R/o. 43, Mahaveer Colony,
Behind Malaria Office,
Sakri Road, Dhule,
District – Dhule. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Dhule City Police Station, Dhule District – Dhule

¶9

2.Dr. Princy w/o. Amit Jain
Age – 26 Years, Occ – Household,
R/o. C/o. Gulabchand Nanhelal Jain,
L-3, Balak Hill, View Colony,
Shivaji Ward, Police Station Gopalganj
Sagar (Madhya Pradesh).
Presently residing at -
H-57, Mayur Parisa,
Near Queen Merry School,
Ayodhya Extension,
Ayodhya Bye Pass Road,
Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). RESPONDENTS

¶10

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶11

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.K.G.Ghadhve Patil, Advocate holding for
Mr.Nitin B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the
petitioners

¶14

Mr.C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for respondent no.2
Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, APP for Respondent – State

¶15

...

¶16

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

¶17

Reserved on : 17.10.2016
 Pronounced on : 20.10.2016

¶18

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶19

This Petition is filed seeking
quashment of the First Information Report
bearing Crime No.217 of 2015 (for short
‘FIR’) registered with Dhule City Police
Station, Dhule, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)
and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, to the extent it relates to
the petitioners.

¶20

2.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the allegations

¶21

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶22

¶23

in the FIR are general in nature. There are

¶24

no specific overt acts attributed to the
petitioners. It is also not stated that on
which date the incident of harassment and
mental cruelty is caused. It is further
submitted that respondent no.2 left

¶25

matrimonial home on 07.06.2015 and the FIR is
lodged on 03.11.2015. There is inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR. It is further
submitted that, respondent no.2 has put it in

¶26

writing on 07.06.2015 that, her husband and
herself are from the medical profession,
therefore, she has decided to start residing

¶27

with her husband peacefully in future. The
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
invites our attention to the contents of the

¶28

said alleged written statement of respondent
no.2 (at Exh.R3, Page 73) of the compilation
of the Criminal Writ Petition, and submits
that the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶29

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶30

¶31

3.The learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioners in support of his contention that, when there are no specific allegations in the FIR, such FIR deserves to be quashed, presses into service exposition of law in the cases of Neelu Chopra and Anr. Vs. Bharti¹ Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.² and Swapnil and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh³ .

¶33

4.On the other hand, the learned

¶34

counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites
our attention to the allegations in the FIR
and also the averments in the affidavit-in-

¶35

reply filed by respondent no.2, and submits
that the allegations in the FIR will have to
be read as they are and can only be tested
during trial. In support of the said
contention, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 presses into service

¶36

1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950

¶37

2 2010 AIR SCW 4975

¶38

3 2014 AIR SCW 6056

¶39

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶40

¶41

exposition of law in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.⁴ . The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 further submits that respondent no.2 has never given statement on 07.06.2015, and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the said statement is totally baseless.

¶42

5.We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, the learned
APP appearing for the respondent – State and
the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2. With their able assistance, perused the
grounds taken in the petition, annexures
thereto, an allegation in the FIR, the
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2,
the relevant provisions of the IPC and the
judgments cited supra by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned

4 2015 AIR SCW 1817

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

counsel for respondent no.2. At the outset it
would be apt to reproduce herein below the
relevant portion from the FIR, which would
spell out the ingredients of the offences
alleged against the petitioners:-

¶47

-----1½ ;g fd vkosfndk dk fookg fnukad- 04-12-13 dks fganq jhfr fjokt uqlkj lkr Hkkaoj iMdj ‘kgj /kqys ¼/kqfy;k½ rglhy ok ftyk /kqys egkjk”Vª es vukosnd dz&1 ds lkFk lEiUu gqvk Fkk A 2½ ;g fd fookg ds nkSjku vukosndx.k dh ekax vuqlkj vkosfndk ds ekrk firk us vukosndx.k dks ngst es 8 yk[k :i;k uxn 12 rksyk lksus dh tsoj] 40 xzke lksus ds 40 flDds] 800 xzke pkanh dk tsoj] diMs o ?kj x`gLFkh dk lkeku dqy 16 yk[k :i;k fn;s Fks A 3½ ;g dh fookg ds ckn vkosfndk viuh llqjky /kqys egkjk”Vª xbZ o vukosndx.k ds lkFk jgh ml nkSjku vkosfndk ds llqjky igqapus ij vukonsdx.kksa us dqN ngst ds crZu o lkeku ifjogu es pVd x;k Fkk mls vkosfndk ,oa vkoafndk ds HkkbZ o firk ds lkeus tehu ij iVd dj rksM fn;k o vkosfndk o mlds firk] HkkbZ dks [kjh [kksVh lqukdj VwVk lkeku o crZu okil ys tkus dks dgk A 4 ½ ;g fd vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ls vkosfndk ds fj’rsnkjks dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr iwaNdj dgk fd fdl&fdl fj’rsnkjksa us D;k&D;k tsoj fn;s crkvks A vukonsdx.k ;g Hkyh Hkkafr tkurs Fks fd] vkosfndk f’kf{kr o MkWDVjh dh chMh-,l- fMxzh /kkjh ;qorh gS mls ckotwn vukosnedx.kksa us

¶48

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶49

¶50

vkosfndk dks tehu ij pVkbZ ij lqyk;k dqRrks dks Qsaddj tSls [kkuk fn;k tkrk gS oSlk [kkuk [kkus dks fn;k Hkh”k.k xehZ es dqyj o ia[kk jkr ,oa nksigj es ugh pykus nsrs A xehZ d 3 s efgus rd Nr ij lqyk;k vkSj xkyh xykSp dj MkWV&QVdkj dj dgk fd fcuk ia[kk] dqyj ds lksus dh vknr Mky yks A vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ÷kkMw iksNk djokrs vkSj vukosnd dz1]2]3]4 vkosfndk ls vius iSj] flj] ‘kjhj es rsy yxokdj ekfy’k djokdj dgrs fd] ukSdjkuh cudj vkbZ gks ukSdjkuh dh rjg gh jguk A vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks fcuk ugk;s izfrfnu lqcg 5 cts ls [kkuk cukus dks etcwj djrs A vkosfndk dks isV o ‘kjhj ds vanj nnZ rdyhQ gksus ij fpfdRld ls bykt ok lksuksxzkQh ugha djkrs cfYd ‘kjhj ij feV~Vh dk rsy yxus o pw.kZ [kkdj rdyhQ nwj djus dks dgrs A 5½ ;g fd lqcg ls jk=h rd ?kj&x`gLFkh ds dke es foyEc gksrk rks vukosndx.k xkyh xykSp dj vkosfndk o mlds ekrk firk ds ckjs es vi’kCn cksydj /kedh nsrs fd ek;ds Hkxk nsaxs A vkosfndk viuh jkstejkZ dh t:jr dh phtksa dh ekax djrh rks vukosndx.k ;gh dgrs fd] vius cki ls ekax ysuk A vukosndx.k ,d nqljs dks vkosfndk ds ckjs es HkMdkdj dku Hkjdj vkosfndk dks fcuk dkj.k otg ds MkWV&QVdkj dj xkyh xykSp dj viekfur djrs jgrs A vukosnd dz- 5 o 6 tc vius ?kj ij jgrs rks os Qksu o vkosfndk dh xkyh xykSp dj /kedkrs fd rqEgkjs dkj.k ?kj cckZn gks tk,xk vius cki ds ikl Hkksiky ,oa lkxj tkvks A vkosfndk us llqjky es jgus ds nkSjku vukosnd dz-1]2]3 us vkosfndk dks O;fDrxr o /kkfeZd

¶51

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶52

¶53

t:jr ds fy, ,d :i;k Hkh ugh fn;k cfYd ekaxus ij ;gh dgk tkrk fd] vkius ckids ;gka ls ys vkvks A 6½ ;g fd vukosndx.kksa us vkosfndk dks etcwj fd;k fd og vius firk ls 15 yk[k :i; ngst es vkSj nsus dks dgs rc vkosfndk ds firk vkosfndk dh llqjky x, vkSj 15 yk[k :i;s nsdj vk;s A dqN fnu ckn vukosndx.k vkosfndk dks ysdj Hkksiky vk;s vkSj vkosfndk ds ekrk firk vius Hkksiky okys egky es :ds Fks A ogka igqpdj vukosndx.kks us 5 yk[k :i;ks ngst es vkSj nsus dks dgk] ij vkosfndk ds firk O;oLFkk ugh dj lds A rks vukosnx.k fnukad 06-06-2015 dks vkosfndk dks] vkosfndk ds ekrk firk ds ikl NksMdj pys x, vkSj /kedh ns x, rks :i;kas dh O;oLFkk gks tk;s rks fizUlh dks Hkstuk] vkSj fcuk :i;ks ds fizUlh llqjky xbZ rks foLQksV es fizUlh dh tku pyh tk;s rks gels er dguk A 7½ ;g fd vkosfndk ,oa mlds ekrk&firk us vukosnd dks Qksu dj vkosfndk dks j[kus ds fy, dgk] vkSj ,d fnu Lo;a vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk vukosndks ds ikl /kqys egkjk”Vª x, A ij vukosnx.kks us vkosfndk o mlds ekrk&firk dks vi’kCn dg dj ihus rd dk ikuh ugh fn;k cfYd ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k] vkSj dgk fd tc&tCk :i;ks dh t:jr iMsxh rc&rc rqEgs nsuk iMsxk] oukZ fizUlh XkSl flysUMj foLQksV es ej ldrh gS A etcwj gksdj vkosfndk o mlds ekrk firk ,d gksVy es Bgj dj okil vius ?kj vk x, A 8½ ;g fd vukosnx.k o vkosfndk dks mlds ekrk firk ds ikl yk jgs Fks rc llqjky es gh vukosndx.kks us vkosfndk ds lkjs lksus pkanh ds tsoj o L=h/ku Nhudj ,oa mrjokdj vius

¶54

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶55

¶56

ikl j[k fy;k Fkk rFkk vukosnx.kks us llqjky es jgus ds nkSjku vkosfndk dks Mjk /kedk dj dqN ckrs dgus dks etcwj dj mu ckrks dks eksckbZy es Vsi dj yh vksj mUgh ckrks dks lquk&lquk dj vkosfndk dks rykd nsus dh /kefd;k ns jgs gS A vkosfndk vukosnxx.kks dks ekufld] ‘kkjhfjd ;krukvksa ,oa ngst dh ekax ls cgqr nq[kh gS vkSj vukosndks ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh pkgrh gS A vr% Jheku th ls fou; gS fd vukosndx.kks ij mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh n;k djsa A lkxj fnukad 20-10-2015 vkosfndk gs gLRkk{kj vaxzsth es A

¶57

6.Oncarefulperusalofthe

¶58

allegations in the FIR, it is abundantly

¶59

clear that there are specific allegations in

¶60

respect of ill-treatment, harassment and

¶61

demand of money from the informant and her

¶62

parents. The ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are, prima facie , disclosed. Whether the said

¶63

allegations are true or otherwise cannot be
gone into while exercising the jurisdiction

¶64

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

¶65

Code. The contention of the learned counsel

¶66

appearing for the petitioners that there is

¶67

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶68

¶69

delay in lodging the FIR needs to be considered in the background stated in the FIR that the parents and relatives of respondent no.2 made serious attempts to convince the petitioners not to further illtreat and harass respondent no.2. However, their efforts went in vain. In the case of Taramani Parakh (supra), the appellant therein left matrimonial home on 02.04.2010 and FIR was lodged on 19.05.2011 even then the Supreme Court entertained the appeal filed by the original complainant and in para no.15 held thus:

¶70

15. There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact

¶71

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶72

¶73

been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

¶74

7.The reliance placed by the learned

¶75

counsel for the petitioners in the case of

¶76

Preeti Gupta (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case the appellants therein were sister-in-

¶77

law and unmarried brother-in-law of the
victim / wife, who were residing at different

¶78

places and did not visit the place of
incident, nor did live with victim / wife and
her husband. However, in the present case the
petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-

¶79

in-law respectively, who were residing in
matrimonial house jointly with respondent
no.2 and her husband. Therefore, the facts of

¶80

the present case vis-a-vis in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) are different. In the

¶81

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶82

¶83

case of Neelu Chopra (supra), the Supreme

¶84

Court was considering the case of the
appellants who were the aged parents of the
husband. In that case the husband Rajesh had
died and the main allegations were only

¶85

against him. The Supreme Court found no
cogent material against the other accused.

¶86

8. In the case of Swapnil and others (supra), the Court has recorded that

¶87

application for restitution of conjugal right
filed by husband was withdrawn as wife was
not interested to live together with the
husband. Allegations in the FIR were vague
and the details as to place and the time of
incident were not mentioned.

¶88

9.The Supreme Court in the case of

¶89

Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another Vs. Monica and

¶90

others⁵ in para 11 of the judgment has held

¶91

that the facts, as alleged, in the FIR will

¶92

have to be proved which can be done only in 5 (2014) 3 SCC 383

¶93

438.2016Cr.WP.odt

¶94

¶95

the course of a regular trial. The

¶96

appreciation, in a summary manner, of the
averments made in the FIR would not be
permissible at the stage of quashing of FIR
and the facts stated will have to be accepted

¶97

as they appear on the very face thereof.

¶98

10. In the light of the discussion in

¶99

the foregoing paragraphs, in our opinion,
there is no substance in the Criminal Writ
Petition. Hence the same stands rejected. We

¶100

make it clear that observations made herein

¶101

before are prima facie in the nature and shall not influence further proceedings, if any.

¶102

Sd/- Sd/-
 [SANGITRAO S.PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶103

DDC

Arvind S/O. Pyarelal Jain and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind S/O. Pyarelal Jain and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang S/O. Namdeo Rankhamb Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vikas Haridas Dhotare and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vikas Haridas Dhotare and Ors.

Kunal S/O. Subhash Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Babulal Kataria Vs 1 Akrur Nagorao Kaspate and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kiran Sopan Ganage