High Court quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings against the petitioner, an uncle of the defendant, relying on inherent powers under Section 498-A IPC where no specific role was attributed and allegations appeared routine.
Relief granted in terms of prayer clause 'B' to the petitioner only by quashing the proceedings.
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.
(Judgment) 1 Cri.WP 574-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2014
Ramdas s/o Baliram Bobde, Age 65 years, occupation Nil, R/o Mahatma Gandhi Zopadpatti, Behind Wooden Machine, Kalamb Tq. Kalamb Dist. Osmanabad. ...Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S. J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1 / State.
Mr. M. B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ.
DATE : 25-10-2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
(Judgment) 2 Cri.WP 574-2014
vide Crime No. M-27 of 2014, registered with Yermala Police Station, Tal. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 315, 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(Judgment) 3 Cri.WP 574-2014
perform second marriage. There was demand of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing Tata Sumo. Informant could not fulfill the said demand. Her father had tried to advice accused persons, but he was driven out after insulting. Accused persons tried to commit murder of informant by kerosene on her person on 21-082012. There was compromise in Women Cell between her and accused persons on 15-09-2012 and she was taken back for cohabitation. Due to the pressure from accused, she had taken her complaint back. However, again the accused persons started harassing her. She was driven out of the house, just two days prior to Diwali in 2012, by taking all her gold ornaments. Her husband had given her notice asking her to resume cohabitation, which she has replied. She had thereafter lodged complaint under Domestic Violence Act. Her husband has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. There was compromise in that petition and she was again taken back for cohabitation. She was treated properly only for 15 days. Her husband and she herself started residing separately near in-laws. She was pregnant at that time, but her husband and others raised suspicion over paternity of the child. She was told to bring amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as a condition of cohabitation. She was threatened that her pregnancy would be terminated if demand is not fulfilled. Her husband had thrown iron plate on her stomach with an intention that her child should die on 14-03-2014. Thereafter
(Judgment) 4 Cri.WP 574-2014
her sonography was done at two places, but she was not informed anything about the result. She was then driven out of the house. Therefore she lodged private complaint. It was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamb. Thereafter, FIR vide Cr. No. M-27-2014 came to be registered.
(Judgment) 5 Cri.WP 574-2014
the Indian Penal Code. A picture has been tried to be painted that maternal uncle is also residing with husband of respondent No. 2. If at all it is a true fact, then she ought to have given reason as to why he was residing with other accused persons. Her own complaint would show that accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 are residing at Sapnai, Tal. Kalamb; whereas present petitioner is residing at Kalamb proper. Therefore, their residence is separate. At the time of earlier compromise, her statement has been recorded. She has not made any allegations against present petitioner. She has made allegations about demand of money by accused persons. If at all there would have been a demand it would have been mainly by the husband and the father and mother-in-law. The perusal of the entire FIR would show that all of them including present petitioner had made the demand in chorus which is not possible. Nothing was demanded by petitioner for him as per the allegations in the FIR itself. So, it appears that, as a routine, the relative of the husband have been roped. It would be futile exercise to ask the petitioner to face the trial, with such material and allegations. Under such circumstance relief is required to be granted to the petitioner by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as powers of this Court under Article No. 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, following order.
(Judgment) 6 Cri.WP 574-2014
ORDER
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) (T. V. NALAWADE) JUDGE JUDGE
vjg/-.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioner, an alleged maternal uncle with no specific role attributed, should be quashed in view of weak and perfunctory allegations.
Whether a relative of the husband can be routinely roped into Section 498-A proceedings without specific allegations against him.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramdas s/o Baliram Bobde
The State of Maharashtra
Gita @ Chandrakala w/o Govind Paul
T. V. Nalawade
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
