Partly allowed

Ronak Anilbhai Modi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2017APPLN/2242/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad partly allowed an application seeking quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court approved the quashing of proceedings against distant relatives (brother-in-law, paternal uncle, and aunt) due to vague allegations and separate residence.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.159/2017 are quashed and set aside so far as they concern the applicants who are brother-in-law, paternal uncle, and aunt.

Ronak Anilbhai Modi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2242/2017

¶5

1] Ronak Anilbhai Modi, age 28 yrs., occu.service, r/o Gautam Park, Society-2, Behind Keshav Park Society, Ancleshwar Tq.Ancleshwar Dist.Bharuch.

¶6

2] Anilbhai Thakurlal Modi, age 60 yrs., occu.service, r/o Gautam Park, Society-2, Behind Keshav Park Society, Ancleshwar Tq.Ancleshwar Dist.Bharuch.

¶7

3] Sangeetaben Anilbhai Modi, age 55 yrs., occu.household, r/o Gautam Park, Society-2, Behind Keshav Park Society, Ancleshwar Tq.Ancleshwar Dist.Bharuch.

¶8

4] Harshal Anilbhai Modi, age 26 yrs., occu.service, r/o c/o Prakasahkumar Karshanbhai Patel, 02, Gayatri Krupa Bunglows, Opp.Goldenpark Society, Agola Road, Hanuman Tekari, Abu Highway, Palanpur, Gujrat.

¶9

5] Bipinchand Chimanlal Mehta, age 60 yrs., occu. r/o Panchayat Bajar, Near Saibaba Mandir, Ancleshwar Tq.Ancleshwar Dist.Bharuch.

¶10

6] Rekhaben Bipinchand Mehta, age 55 yrs., occu.household, r/o Panchayat Bajar, Near Saibaba Mandir, Ancleshwar Tq.Ancleshwar Dist.Bharuch.

¶11

...Applicants..

¶12

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶13

- 2 -

¶14

Versus

¶15

1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station, Nandurbar. Dist.Nandurbar.

¶16

2] Dipali Ronak Modi, age 25 yrs., occu.household, r/o Near Dandpaneshwar Mandir, Nandurbar Dist.Nandurbar.

¶17

...Respondents...

¶18

 .....

¶19

Shri P.R. Harshal, Advocate for applicants.
Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent no.1.
Shri R.S. Wani, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶20

 .....

¶21

CORAM: PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 21.12.2017

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

1] Application was heard for final disposal.

¶24

2] The applicants have challenged the proceedings

¶25

initiated by the respondent no.2 u/s 18, 20, 22 and 23 of

¶26

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The

¶27

said proceedings were initiated vide Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.159/2017. The said

¶28

application was filed on 22.3.2017. The trial Court took
cognizance of the said proceedings by issuing notice to
the respondent nos.1 to 6 therein.

¶29

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶30

- 3 -

¶31

3]The applicants have, therefore, approached this
Court. The applicant no.1 is the husband of respondent
no.2. The applicant nos.2 and 3 are father-in-law and

¶32

mother-in-law of the said respondent. The applicant
nos.4 to 6 are brother-in-law, paternal uncle and aunt of
the applicant no.1. In the application preferred by the

¶33

respondent no.2, several grievances were made. It was
contended that the marriage between the applicant no.1
and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 11.5.2015.

¶34

After the marriage, the respondent no.2 joined the

¶35

matrimonial home. The respondent nos.1 to 4 in the said
application were residing together. It was also alleged

¶36

that the respondents were harassing her. They were

¶37

asking her to bring money from her parents. She was
mentally and physically ill-treated. She was not allowed
to speak with her parents. The respondent nos.5 & 6

¶38

therein were also abusing her. The applicant no.1 –

¶39

husband used to consume liquor and return home in the
night. He used to assault her. She was physically abused

¶40

by the opponents. They had demanded an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to be brought by her from parents. The

¶41

parents of the respondent no.2 requested the opponents to

¶42

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶43

- 4 -

¶44

resolve the dispute by amicable settlement. However, the
opponents did not agree for the same and it was stated
that unless the amount, which was demanded by them is not

¶45

brought, there will not be resolution of dispute. The
respondent no.2, therefore, prayed for various reliefs
u/s 20,21 and 22 of the Act. She claimed maintenance in

¶46

the sum of Rs.15,000/-. She had also claimed
compensation.

¶47

4]The learned counsel for the applicants submitted

¶48

that the application u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act

¶49

is based on false and frivolous grounds. It is submitted
that the allegations of demand of money are concocted.
The respondent no.2 had also forwarded complaint to
Nandurbar City Police Station against the applicants,

¶50

which was transferred to Mahila Dakshata Samiti for
settlement between the applicants and the respondent
no.2. The First Information Report was registered on

¶51

22.7.2016 vide Crime No.106/2016. It is submitted by the

¶52

learned counsel for the applicants that the husband had
cohabited with respondent no.2. He also took proper care
of her. Although the respondent no.2 was ailing, medical

¶53

treatment was provided to her. The applicant no.4 is an

¶54

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶55

- 5 -

¶56

engineer and working at Palanpur, Gujarat. He is
permanent resident of Palanpur, Gujarat. The distance

¶57

between Ancleshwar and Palanpur is about 300 Kms. It is
further submitted that there was no domestic violence and

¶58

the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.2 are not
tenable in law. The allegations made in the application

¶59

are vague in nature and unsupported by any evidence. The
applicant nos.5 & 6 are paternal uncle and aunt of the
applicant no.1. They are residing separately. They have

¶60

deliberately involved in the said proceedings. The
allegations against them are vague in nature.

¶61

5]The learned counsel for the respondent no.2

¶62

submitted that the applicants have raised debatable issues, which cannot be looked into at this stage. Prima facie case was made out in the application preferred by the respondent no.2 and, therefore, the Court has taken cognizance of the application and issued notice to the applicants. The respondent no.2 be permitted to adduce requisite evidence before the Court to prov the grievance

¶63

made in her application. It is submitted that specific
overt-act has been attributed to all the applicants. The

¶64

submissions advanced by the applicants are based on

¶65

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶66

- 6 -

¶67

disputed questions of fact, which cannot be appreciated

¶68

in an application u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. It is,

¶69

therefore, submitted that the application may be
dismissed.

¶70

6]I have perused the application preferred by the

¶71

respondent no.2 and the other documents, which are

¶72

annexed to the application. The applicant no.1 is the
husband of respondent no.2. The applicant nos.2 & 3 are

¶73

the parents of applicant no.1 i.e. father-in-law and
mother-in-law of respondent no.2. The marriage between

¶74

the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on
11.5.2015. The application under Domestic Violence Act

¶75

was filed on 22.3.2017. There are specific allegations

¶76

against applicant nos.1 to 3. The applicant no.4 is
employed at Palanpur, Gujarat. The applicant nos.5 & 6
are the relatives of the applicant no.1. The applicant

¶77

no.4 is the brother-in-law of the respondent no.2.

¶78

Although some allegations are made against applicant
nos.4 to 6, they are vague in nature and are not

¶79

sufficient to constitute domestic violence as

¶80

contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. The
applicant nos.4 to 6 are residing separately. However, on

¶81

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶82

perusal of the application, on the other hand, that there

¶83

are specific allegations against applicant nos.1 to 3.
The submissions advanced on behalf of applicant nos.1 to

¶84

3 cannot be accepted for quashing the proceedings. The
respondent no.2 must be given an opportunity to adduce
evidence in her support and prove the contents of the
application preferred by her. The proceedings cannot be
quashed at this stage in exercise of powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. as against applicant nos.1 to 3.

¶85

However, taking into consideration the nature of
allegations made against applicant nos.4 to 6, I am
inclined to quash the proceedings against them in
exercise of powers u/ 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, I pass
the following order.

¶86

a]The Criminal Application No.2242/2017 is
partly allowed.

¶87

b]The application to the extent of applicant
nos.1 to 3 stands rejected.

¶88

applicant nos.4 to 6 is allowed and the impugned
order dated 22.3.2017 passed by learned Judicial

¶89

Cr.Appln. 2242/17

¶90

Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.159/2017 and the

¶91

said proceedings are quashed and set aside as
against the applicant nos.4 to 6.

¶92

d]The application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶93

 (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶94

ndk/ cr211217.doc

Ronak Anilbhai Modi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ronak Anilbhai Modi 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

Dr Varsha Bajirao Manurkar Kadam Vs Appropriate Authority Cum Medical Superintendent

Vinayak Vasant Papinwar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr Nitin Bankatlal Mandhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Harsha Liladhar Rane Vs Rupali Kailas Rane and Anr.

Sau. Kalpna W/O Pankaj Razatkar and Anr. Vs Pankaj S/O Suadu Razatkar

Yusuf Khan S/O Hussain Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.