Milind S/O. Suresh Zarekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2018WP/1456/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected four criminal writ petitions seeking discharge of accused persons under Section 498A IPC in a matrimonial cruelty case arising from the suicide of the husband. The bench held that specific allegations of mistreatment and suicide threats in the FIR were sufficient for framing charges.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions rejected; criminal trials allowed to proceed; interim bail extended.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

¶2

 crwp1453.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2017

¶5

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

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Kotwali police Station, Ahmednagar,

¶8

2] Renu Ajit Zarekar, age 29 years, occ. Advocate, R/o Abhijeet Monot Estate, Station, Ahmednagar … Respondents [No.2 Orig.Complt.]

¶9

.....

¶10

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

¶11

.....

Milind S/O. Suresh Zarekar Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2018)

¶49

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶60

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.

¶64

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

¶68

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

¶69

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.

¶74

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.

¶93

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.

¶95

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

¶100

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.

¶101

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.

¶115

“ 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

¶117

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. “

¶125

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.

Milind S/O. Suresh Zarekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badrinath S/O. Udaysing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Nana Korde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr.

Pushpalata W/O. Suresh Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Milind S/O. Suresh Zarekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badrinath S/O. Udaysing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok S/O Dyayaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Nana Korde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr.

Pushpalata W/O. Suresh Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

A compact analysis

Suresh S/O. Bajarang Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarika W/O. Milind Zarekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.