Partly allowed

Girish S/O Upendra Karhade and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017APPLN/2876/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application of petitioners 2 to 7 to quash the FIR and charge-sheet in a criminal case unrelated to them. The court found no specific overt acts against these distant relatives, the FIR was lodged belatedly, and allegations were inherently improbable. The petition of petitioner 1 was rejected as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

FIR and charge-sheet quashed to the extent of petitioners 2 to 7; application of petitioner 1 rejected as not pressed.

Girish S/O Upendra Karhade and Other Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

2876.16appln+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2876 OF 2016 WITH APPLN/5915/2016 IN APPLN/2876/2016

¶6

1. Girish S/o Upendra Karhade Age : 34 years, Occ : Service, R/o Sonal Apartment, Flat No.16, Trimurti Chowk, Garkheda, Aurangabad.

¶7

2. Vidya W/o Upendra Karhade Age : 57 years, Occ : Household, R/o Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.

¶8

3. Pratima W/o Prakash Diwanji Age : 36 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vasant Vihar, Pune Road, Solapur, Tq. & Dist. Solapur.

¶9

4. Aarti D/o Upendra Karhade Age : 31 years, Occ : Service, R/o Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.

¶10

5. Prakash S/o Mohan Diwanji Age : 43 years, Occ : Household, R/o Vasant Vihar, Pune Road, Solapur, Tq. & Dist. Solapur.

¶11

6. Pranita D/o Upendra Karhade Age : 30 years, Occ : Service, R/o Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.

¶12

2876.16appln+

¶13

¶14

7.Upendra S/o Vishnupant Karhade
Age : 66 years, Occ : Pensioner,
R/o Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.

¶15

..PETITIONERS

¶16

-VERSUS-

¶17

1. The State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Cidco, N-7, Aurangabad.

¶18

2. Purva W/o Girish Karhade Age : 31 years, Occ : Service, R/o 127/2, B Sector, Subhashchandra Bose Nagar, N-11, Hudco, Aurangabad.

¶19

..RESPONDENTS

¶20

....

¶21

Advocate for applicant: Mr.S.A. Deshmukh
APP for Respondent/State:Mr.M.M. Nerlikar
Advocate for respondent no.2:Mr.P.C. Mayure

¶22

CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &

¶23

K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Dated: January 18, 2017

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT (S.S.SHINDE, J)

¶25

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

¶26

2.At the outset, the learned counsel
appearingfortheapplicants,on

¶27

instructions, submits that, he will not press
present application qua applicant no.1 –

¶28

2876.16appln+

¶29

¶30

Girish S/o Upendra Karhade. Hence the
application in respect of applicant no.1
Girish S/o Upendra Karhade stands rejected as
not pressed.

¶31

3.This application is filed with the
following prayers:-

¶32

"C.To quash and set aside the further
proceeding of FIR/Crime bearing
No.344/2016 registered at Police
Station, Cidco, N-7, Aurangabad dated
18.05.2016 for the offence U/Sec. 498-
A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C. filed by
respondent no.2.

¶33

C-1This Hon'ble Court may kindly be
quashed and set aside the impugned
Charge-SheetNo.293/2016dated
18.07.2016, which is pending before
the Ld. 15th J.M.F.C. Aurangabad in
R.C.C. No.1837/2016 and accordingly
pendingtrialbearingR.C.C.
No.1837/2016 may kindly be quashed and
set aside.”

¶34

4.The learned counsel appearing for
the applicants submits that applicant nos.2
to 7 are residing at different places than
the matrimonial home. He submits that
applicant no.2 is the mother of applicant
no.1 Girish i.e. husband of respondent no.2.
He further states that, immediately after the
marriage, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2

¶35

2876.16appln+

¶36

¶37

shifted to Aurangabad and are residing at Aurangabad. He further submits that applicant no.3 is residing at Solapur, applicant no.4 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, applicant no.5 is residing at Solapur, applicant no.6 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad and applicant no.7 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune. All these places, where applicant nos.2 to 7 are residing are more than 225 Kms. away from Aurangabad. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in F.I.R. are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, ingredients of the alleged offences so far as applicant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, are not attracted. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal¹ , this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and also chargesheet deserve to be quashed.

¶38

5.On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites
our attention to the allegations in F.I.R.,
supplementary statement of respondent no.2
and the statements of other witnesses and
submits that the ingredients of the offences

¶39

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶40

2876.16appln+

¶41

¶42

have been clearly disclosed, and therefore,
keeping in view the exposition of law by the
Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh
V/s State of M.P. & Ors.2and also in the
case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another V/s
Monica and other3, the appreciation even in a
summery manner, of the averments made in a
complaint or FIR would not be permissible at
the stage of quashing and the facts stated
will have to be accepted as they appear on
the very face of it.

¶43

6.We have carefully perused the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, the learned
A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2. With their able assistance,
we have perused the allegations in the
F.I.R., supplementary statement of respondent
no.2 and the statements of other witnesses.
So far as applicant nos. 2 to 7 are
concerned, the allegations against them in
the F.I.R. are as under :-

¶44

2 2015(3) Supreme 233

¶45

3 (2014) 3 SCC 383

¶46

2876.16appln+

¶47

¶48

fon;k misanz d&gkMs] jk- fiaijh fpapoM iq.ks] 3½ uaun izfrHkk izdk'k fnokuth] jk- olar fogkj iq.ks jksM] lksykiqj] 4- u.kan vkjrh misanz d&gkMs] jk- fiaijh fpapoM] iq.ks] 5- uanbZ izdk'k fnokuth] jk- olar fogkj iq.ks jksM] lksykiqj] 6- izf.krk miasnz d&gkMs] jk- iq.ks] 7- misanz fo".kqiar d&gkMs] jk- fiaijh fpapoM] iq.ks vls usgeh eyk ojhy loZ eaMGh ;kauh v/kqu e/kqu vkSjaxkckn ;sFks izR;{k ;sÅu lrr eyk osGksosGh ekufld o 'kkfjjhd =kl ns.;kl lq:okr dsyh o eyk rqÖ;k ekgs:u iS'ks ?ksoqu ;s tk vls Eg.kqu usgeh ekufld 'kkfjjhd =kl nsr vlrR;kuarj fn- 12-09-2014 yk ek>s irh ukes fxjhÔ ;kauh ek>s lklq ukes fo|kckbZ fgps lkax.kso:u eyk ngk :i;s pk DokbZu pksjyk vlk vkjksi ykoqu eyk ekgsjh ,u&11] gMdks ;sFks vk.kqu lksMys o f'kohxkG dsyhrsOgkiklqu rs vkt fn- 18-05-2016 Ik;Zar eh ekgsjh ,u&11] gMdks ;sFks jkgr vkgs-

¶49

ii ½ ... eyk ojhy loZ eaMGh lrr eyk osGksosGh ekufld o 'kkfjjhd NG d:u =kl fnysyk vlqu R;kP;kfo:/n dk;ns'khj dk;Zokgh djkoh o eyk U;k; feGoqu n;kok gh fouarh-”

¶50

2876.16appln+

¶51

¶52

7. Apart from the aforestated

¶53

allegations in the F.I.R., we have also
carefully perused supplementary statement of
the informant. The said statement is recorded
immediately on the next day i.e. on
17.05.2016. When the F.I.R. was lodged by
respondent no.2, respondent no.2 has not
placed anything on record what prevented her
from making allegations made in the
supplementary statement in the F.I.R.

¶54

8.Upon careful perusal of the
allegations in the F.I.R., there are no
specific overt acts attributed qua applicant
nos.5 to 7, though there is foul on the part
of informant to rope in applicant no.2 Vidya
Upendra Karhade, who is mother-in-law of
respondent no.2, the allegations made against
her are inherently improbable. Therefore,
keeping in view the allegations in the F.I.R.
as against applicant nos. 2 to 7 and the fact
that they are residing at a different places,
which are having more than 225 Kms. distance
from Aurangabad and also the F.I.R. was
lodged on 16th May, 2016 belatedly i.e. after
more than two and half years from the alleged
incident stated in the F.I.R.

¶55

2876.16appln+

¶56

¶57

9.The Supreme Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another4 in the facts of that
case held that casual reference to a large
number of members of the husband’s family
without any allegation of active involvement
would not justify taking cognizance against
them and subjecting them to trial. In the
said judgment, there is also reference of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
G.V.Rao Vs.L.H.V. Prasad5 wherein para 12 it
is observed thus:

¶58

“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are

¶59

4 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶60

5 (2000) 3 SCC 693

¶61

2876.16appln+

¶62

¶63

rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.”

¶64

10.Therefore, keeping in view the
exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the
casea of State of Haryana (Supra) and Geeta
Mehrotra (supra), we are inclined to quash
the F.I.R. and also charge-sheet to the
extent of applicant nos.2 to 7. Therefore,
the application is partly succeed. Hence the
following order :-

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i)The application of applicant nos.2
to 7 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
`C' and C-1.

¶67

2876.16appln+

¶68

¶69

(ii)The application so far as applicant
no.1 – Girish Upendra Karhade is concerned,
the same stands rejected as not pressed.

¶70

(iii)Rule made absolute accordingly. The
application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶71

11.In view of disposal of Criminal
Application No.2876 of 2016, nothing survives
for consideration in Criminal Application
no.5915 of 2016 and the same stands disposed
of accordingly.

¶72

SGA

Girish S/O Upendra Karhade and Other v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish S/O Upendra Karhade and Other 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

Radha @ Ashtha Vitthaql Takaras Vs the State of Mah

Balaji S/O Ganpati Chame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devidas S/O Sukhdeo Ghate and Other Vs the State of Maharshtra and Anr.

Kanifnath S/O Radhakishan Popalghat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Karbhari Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lalsing Amarsing Barela (Pawara) Vs the State of Maharashtra.