High Court rejected four criminal writ petitions seeking discharge of accused men under the Delhi Domestic Working Women's Shelter Act, 2005, against a woman who alleged mental and physical cruelty, holding that prima facie material existed.
Writ petitions rejected; Interim relief (extension of stay) extended for two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
crwp1453.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2017
Sau. Pushpalata w/o Suresh Zarekar,
age 59 years, occ. housewife,
R/o Anmol Bangla no.5,
Behind Chhatrapati Bajaj Showroom,
Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar… Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra, through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar,2] Renu Ajit Zarekar, age 29 years, occ. Advocate, R/o Abhijeet Monot Estate, Station, Ahmednagar … Respondents [No.2 Orig.Complt.].....
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.P.Basarkar, A.G.P for respondent/State
Mr. U.S.Malte, advocate for respondent no.2
.....
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2017
Milind s/o Suresh Zarekar,
age 38 years, occ. advocate,
R/o Anmol Bangla no.5,
Behind Chhatrapati Bajaj Showroom,
Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar… Petitioner
VERSUS
2 crwp1453.171] The State of Maharashtra, through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar,2]Renu Ajit Zarekar,
age 29 years, occ. Advocate,
R/o Abhijeet Monot Estate,
Station, Ahmednagar… Respondents
[No.2 Orig.Complt.]
.....
Mr. S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.P.Basarkar, A.G.P for respondent/State
Mr. U.S.Malte, advocate for respondent no.2
.....
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1454 OF 2017
Suresh s/o Bajarang Zarekar,
age 65 years, occ. advocate,
R/o Anmol Bangla no.5,
Behind Chhatrapati Bajaj Showroom,
Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar… Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra, through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar,2] Renu Ajit Zarekar, age 29 years, occ. Advocate, R/o Abhijeet Monot Estate, Station, Ahmednagar … Respondents [No.2 Orig.Complt.].....
Mr. A.C.Darandale, advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.P.Basarkar, A.G.P for respondent/State
Mr. U.S.Malte, advocate for respondent no.2
.....
3
crwp1453.17
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1455 OF 2017
Sau. Sarika w/o Milind Zarekar,
age 33 years, occ. housewife,
R/o Anmol Bangla no.5,
Behind Chhatrapati Bajaj Showroom,
Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar… Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra, through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar,2] Renu Ajit Zarekar, age 29 years, occ. Advocate, R/o Abhijeet Monot Estate, Station, Ahmednagar … Respondents [No.2 Orig.Complt.]
.....
Mr. R.A.Tambe, advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.P.Basarkar, A.G.P for respondent/State
Mr. U.S.Malte, advocate for respondent no.2
.....
CORAM: K.L.WADANE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22.01.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.01.2018
JUDGMENT :
Rule.Ruleismadereturnable
forthwith. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, these four Writ
Petitions are taken up together for final
hearing, having common subject matter involved
in all the Petitions. Heard Mr. R.N.Dhorde,
4 crwp1453.17
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2017, Mr.
S.J.Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2017, Mr.
A.C.Darandale, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1454 of 2017,
and Mr. R.A.Tambe, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 2017,
as also Mr. A.P.Basarkar, learned counsel for
respondent no.1/State and Mr. U.S.Malte,
learned counsel for respondent no.2 in all the
Writ Petitions.
2.Brief facts of the case may be stated
as follows.
On 14.5.2011, respondent no.2 married
with one Ajit Zarekar, son of the petitioners
in Writ Petition Nos. 1453 and 1454 of 2017.
Immediately, on 10.7.2011 the couple shifted to
Aurangabad, as both were practicing as
advocates at Aurangabad.
5 crwp1453.17
respondent no.2, namely Ajit committed suicide
by hanging himself in his house at Aurangabad.
Ajit left the suicide note with certain
allegations against respondent no.2. After the
suicide, the brother of Ajit lodged complaint
with Jawaharnagar police station, Aurangabad,
for the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code against respondent no.2
and her parents.
4.It is alleged that on 18.2.2014, to
give counter blast to the complaint under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,
respondent no.2, after a period of four months,
lodgedpresentcomplaintagainstthe
petitioners accused nos. 1 to 4 in these Writ
Petitions, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
6 crwp1453.17
5.Criminal Writ Petition No. 1378 of 2014
was filed by the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to
4 on 14.11.2014 for quashing the complaint
filed by respondent no.2 and same was disposed
of as withdrawn on 24.3.2015. Criminal Writ
Petition No. 1151 of 2014 was filed by the
sisters-in-law of respondent no.2 namely Smita
and Nita i.e. accused nos. 5 and 6, which was
allowed and complaint against them came to be
quashed.
6.After the investigation, charge sheet
was filed in the Court.
7.The petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 4
moved an application under Section 239 of
Criminal Procecdure Code before the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad seeking
discharge, which was rejected. The said order
was challenged in appeal before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional
7 crwp1453.17
Sessions Judge has also confirmed the finding
recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Aurangabad. Hence, these Writ
Petitions.
8.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner/original accused
has pointed out certain infirmities in the
statement of witnesses in relation to golden
ornaments, its taking away by the accused
persons and its places. Mr. Dhorde, learned
Senior counsel argued that one of the accused
namely Milind Zarekar, after the suicide of his
brother Ajit, immediately on the next day of
the incident lodged complaint against
respondent no.2 and her parents and after about
four months, to give counter blast to the said
complaint, respondent no.2 filed the first
information report, which is the subject matter
of the present Petitions.
8 crwp1453.17
9.Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the connected Writ Petitions
have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.
Dhorde, learned Senior counsel.
10.Learned A.P.P. opposed the Petitions on
the ground that the offence committed by the
petitioners/accused persons is very serious.
Mr. Malte, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2 has pointed out the contents of
the first information report in detail and has
argued that there are specific allegations
against each accused, therefore, there is
sufficient material to frame the charge against
the petitioners. Mr. Malte, learned counsel
further submits that there were series of
instances of illtreatment given to respondent
no.2 at the hands of petitioners.
contents of the first information report and
9 crwp1453.17
the statements of witnesses, namely (1)
advocate Sujata Kothari, aunt, (2) advocate
Mangala Rajesh Kothari, mother, (3) advocate
Rajesh Kothari, father and other witnesses
namely Ashok Gandhi, Asif Pathan, Vimlesh
Gandhi and Rajendra Shinde. From the contents
of the first information report/complaint and
the statements of these witnesses, it appears
that on 20.5.2011 the mother-in-law and
sisters-in-law slapped respondent no.2 by
saying that there is no custom in their
community to go for outing after the marriage.
In the month of August, 2011, the mother-in-law
and sisters-in-law assaulted respondent no.2 on
account of not bringing acquaguard. It further
reveals that the mother-in-law and father-in-
law also assaulted respondent no.2 on the
ground of not bringing golden ring. On
14.5.2012, when respondent no.2 and her husband
were intending to go to Mahabaleshwar, they
were not allowed to go to Mahabaleshwar. It
10 crwp1453.17
further reveals that on number of occasions,
the in-laws of respondent no.2 insulted, abused
and beat respondent no.2. There are
allegations against the brother-in-law about
sending certain messages on the mobile of
respondent no.2, by which he gave mental
torture to respondent no.2. Those messages and
photographs were regarding commission of
suicide by her husband.
12.From the statements of witnesses,
referred above, it appears that respondent no.2
disclosed to the witnesses about the
illtreatment given by accused persons to her,
particularly the statement of witness Mangala
Kothari i.e. mother-in-law of respondent no.2
exactly supports the contents of the
complaint/first information report. From the
statement of witness Asif Pathan, a rickshaw
driver, it appears that respondent no.2 was
seen weeping, therefore, he took her in his
11 crwp1453.17
rickshaw and left at her house. From the
statement of witness Rajendra Shinde, it
appears that, after the death of husband of
respondent no.2, when he visited the house of
parents of respondent no.2, they were
threatened not to attend last ceremony of
deceased Ajit. So, from the contents of the
first information report as well as the
statements of other witnesses, prima facie it
appears that there is sufficient material to
frame charge against the petitioners and to
proceed further with the trial.
13.At this stage, it is not necessary to
scrutinize the statements of informant and the
witnesses minutely as if this Court is sitting
in appellate jurisdiction. The Court has to
see whether there is sufficient material
against the accused persons to frame charge and
if it is found so the accused cannot be
discharged.
12 crwp1453.17
14.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior counsel
tried to harp upon the point of delay in
lodging the complaint by respondent no.2.
However, it is material to mention that the
copy of complaint filed by respondent no.2 on
record. On perusal of the same, it appears
that on 14.10.2013 respondent no.2 had filed
complaint to the police station with
allegations of illtreatment at the hands of
petitioners. Unfortunately, that was on the
day when her husband committed suicide.
15.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior counsel
relied upon the observations in the case of
Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand and others,
reported in 2003 CR.L.J. 2759, particularly
para 16 thereof, which reads thus :
“ 16. For the purpose of Section 498A
IPC which is peculiar to Indian
families victim spouse is always the
'wife' and guilty is the husband and
his relatives-near or distant, living
together or separately. Ingredients of
'cruelty' as contemplated under Section
13 crwp1453.17
498A are of much higher and sterner
degree than the ordinary concept of
cruelty applicable and available for
the purposes of dissolution of marriage
i.e. Divorce. In constituting 'cruelty'
contemplated by Section 498A IPC the
acts or conduct should be either such
that may cause danger to life; limb or
health pr cause 'grave' injury or of
such a degree that may drive a woman to
commit suicide. Not only that such acts
or conduct should be "willful" i.e
intentional. So to invoke provisions of
Section 498A IPC the tests are of
stringent nature and intention is the
most essential factor. The only test is
that acts or conduct of guilty party
should have the sting or effect of
causing grave injury to the woman or
are likely to cause danger of life,
limb or physical or mental health.
Further conduct that is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide is of much
graver nature than that causing grave
injury or endangering life, limb or
physical or mental health. It involves
series of systematic, persistent and
willful acts perpetrated with a view to
make the life of the woman so
burdensome or insupportable that she
may be driven to commit suicide because
of having been fed up with marital
life. “
The observations in the cited case are
not applicable to the facts of present case,
because from the record it appears that there
are certain allegations against the petitioners
and there are series of instances with
14 crwp1453.17
particulars of illtreatment given by each of
the accused to respondent no.2. Therefore, the
allegations as to the illtreatment to
respondent no.2 are not vague. As such, the
petitioners are not entitled for discharge.
16.I have gone through the reasons
recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Aurangabad, as well as the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Both
the Courts below have considered the legal
aspect of the matter. Learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad has rightly
rejected the application filed by the
petitioners for discharge and same is rightly
confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Aurangabad.
17.In the result, there is no substance in
these Writ Petitions. Consequently, all the
Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected.
15 crwp1453.17
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are rejected.
No costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.
After pronouncement of the judgment in
the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submit
that they want to assail the order passed in
these Writ Petitions before the Apex Court.
Therefore, they prayed to extend the interim
relief granted by this Court on 13th October,
2017.
In view of the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioners, the interim relief
granted by this Court on 13th October, 2017 is
extended for a period of two weeks from today.
dbm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient material to sustain the charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC to reject the Writ Petitions for discharge.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint by the respondent justifies granting discharge to the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Savitri Devi vs Ramesh Chand and others, reported in 2003 CR.L.J. 2759Distinguished¶118
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Sau. Pushpalata w/o Suresh Zarekar
Milind s/o Suresh Zarekar
Suresh s/o Bajarang Zarekar
Sau. Sarika w/o Milind Zarekar
The State of Maharashtra through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar
Renu Ajit Zarekar
K.L.WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court