Partly allowed

Shrikant S/O. Kishor Aarak and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2019APPLN/3614/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the criminal appeals of the wife's parents and siblings to quash the FIR. The court held that no specific allegations were made against them for Section 498-A IPC apart from the husband, and casual references to family members do not justify taking cognizance, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the First Information Report to the extent of applicant Nos. 2 to 6 and dismissed the application against applicant No. 1.

Shrikant S/O. Kishor Aarak and Others Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

3614.18 APPLN1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3614 OF 2018

¶5

1. Shrikant S/o Kishor Aarak Age : 30 years, Occ : Nil,

¶6

2. Usha W/o Kishor Aarak Age : 58 years, Occ : Household,

¶7

3. Kishor S/o Dayaram Aarak Age : 65 years, Occ : Retired,

¶8

4.Prashant S/o Kishor Aarak
Age : 35 years, Occ : Service,
Nos.1 to 4 :
R/o Near Sakhri Toll Plaza,
Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.

¶9

5. Swati W/o Ishwar Khandare Age : 33 years, Occ : Service,

¶10

6. Ishwar S/o Haridas Khandare Age : 35 years, Occ : Service, Nos.5 and 6 : R/o 15 Bungalow, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶11

 .. APPLICANTS

¶12

 VERSUS

¶13

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, City Police Station, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶14

3614.18 APPLN1

¶15

¶16

2.Yogita W/o Shrikant Aarak
Age : 28 years, Occ : Household,
R/o RBII/940/A Road,
Near Mahalaxmi Temple, Limbs Club
Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

...

¶19

 Mr.S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for applicants
 Mr.R.V. Dasalkar, APP for Respondent – State.
 Mr.Shaikh Mohammad Naseer

¶20

...

¶21

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 R.G.AVACHAT, JJ.

¶22

DATED : 15.02.2019

¶23

JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

¶24

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶25

heard finally with the consent of the learned

¶26

counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶27

2.This Application is filed praying therein

¶28

to quash and set aside F.I.R. bearing Crime No.92
of 2018 dated 05.11.2018 registered with City
Police Station, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

¶29

3614.18 APPLN1

¶30

¶31

504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short “I.P. Code”).

¶32

3.Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.

¶34

4.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

applicants submits that Respondent No.2 soon after
the marriage started residing with her parents and
applicant no.1 herein used to regularly visit her
at her parents house. Out of wedlock of applicant
no.1 and respondent No.2, one female child is

¶36

begotten. It is submitted that the harassment as
alleged against the applicants is prior to two

¶37

years of lodging the first information report.
Respondent No.2 never resided in matrimonial home,
and therefore, there was no role of applicant

¶38

Nos.2 to 6 in the alleged harassment or

¶39

3614.18 APPLN1

¶40

¶41

illtreatment. Learned counsel invites our

¶42

attention to the various documents to demonstrate
that, Respondent No.2 started residing with her
parents soon after the marriage. It is submitted
that an allegations in the first information
report are omnibus and general in nature, and an
alleged offences are not disclosed against the
applicants. Therefore, he submits that the
application may be allowed.

¶43

5.On the other hand, learned A.P.P.

¶44

appearing for the respondent/State and learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 invites our
attention to the contents of the first information
report and also the statements of the witnesses
recorded during the course of investigation, and
submits that the sufficient material has been
collected during the course of an investigation
and the trial can proceed on the basis of such

¶45

material. An alleged offences are clearly

¶46

3614.18 APPLN1

¶47

¶48

disclosed against the applicants, and therefore,
the application may be rejected.

¶49

6.We have given careful consideration to

¶50

the submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the applicants, learned A.P.P. appearing for the
respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.

¶51

7.Upon careful perusal of the contents of

¶52

the first information report, it appears that the
marriage of Respondent No.2 with applicant no.1
was love marriage. Upon careful perusal of the
averments in the application filed under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it clearly appears
that applicant no.1 and Respondent No.2 were good
friends even before the marriage and they used to
meet each other on regular basis. Upon perusal of

¶53

the various documents placed on record, and even

¶54

3614.18 APPLN1

¶55

¶56

the contents of the aforesaid application filed by
Respondent No.2 would clearly shows that,
Respondent No.2 after marriage started residing
with her parents. All the aforesaid documents
referred hereinabove are not disputed.

¶57

8.Upon careful perusal of the contents of
the first information report, it is not clearly
mentioned that, Respondent No.2 after marriage
resided in the matrimonial house with the parents
of applicant no.1. We have carefully perused the
allegations in the first information report, and
we find that there is no specific incident or
overt act has been attributed qua applicant Nos.2
to 6. So far as applicant no.1 is concerned, there
are allegations which would prima facie disclose

¶58

the alleged offences against him. It is

¶59

specifically alleged against applicant no.1, that
he demanded Rs.5,00,000/ from Respondent No.2.

¶60

Whether such demand was at all there or not, is a

¶61

3614.18 APPLN1

¶62

¶63

matter for investigation, and therefore, to the
extent of applicant no.1, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the application.

¶64

9.As already observed, upon careful perusal
of the first information report and also the
statements of the witnesses recorded during the
course of investigation, there are no specific
allegations qua applicant nos.2 to 6 and also no
specific overt act has been attributed to them,
and all allegations are general in nature.
Applicant No.5 is a married sister of applicant
no.1 and applicant no.6 is her husband. They are
residing separately at Bhusawal. Applicant No.2 is
mother of applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 is his
father. Applicant no.4 is brother of applicant

¶65

no.1. Even if the allegations in the first
information report are read in its entirety, no
offences are disclosed as against applicant nos.2

¶66

to 6. In that view of the matter, their prayer to

¶67

3614.18 APPLN1

¶68

¶69

quash the first information report deserves
consideration.

¶70

10.The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta

¶71

Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

¶72

and another1 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. Prasad2 wherein para
12 it is observed thus:

¶73

“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

¶74

1 (2012) 10 SCC 741

¶75

2 (2000) 3 SCC 693

¶76

3614.18 APPLN1

¶77

¶78

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 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.”

¶79

11.In view of the discussion made

¶80

hereinabove, the application on behalf of

¶81

applicant No.1  Shrikant S/o Kishor Aarak stands
rejected.

¶82

3614.18 APPLN1

¶83

¶84

12.The application in respect of Applicant
No.2  Usha W/o Kishor Aarak, Applicant No.3
Kishor S/o Dayaram Aarak, Applicant No.4 
Prashant S/o Kishor Aarak, Applicant No.5  Swati
W/o Ishwar Khandare and Applicant No.6  Ishwar
S/o Haridas Khandare is allowed. The F.I.R.
bearing Crime No.92 of 2018 dated 05.11.2018
registered with City Police Station, Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code to the extent of applicant Nos.2
to 6 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute
in above terms.

¶85

13.It is made clear that the observations

¶86

made herein above are prima facie in nature and
confined to the adjudication of the present
Application only.

¶87

Rejection of this application in respect

¶88

of applicant no.1 shall not be construed as an

¶89

3614.18 APPLN1

¶90

¶91

impediment to Applicant No.1 to avail of an
appropriate remedy in the event of filing charge
sheet by the Investigating Officer.

¶92

[R.G.AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶93

SGA

Shrikant S/O. Kishor Aarak and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant S/O. Kishor Aarak and Others 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

The Commissioner Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad Vs Dr. Salim Ali Lake Conservation Forum Aurangabad through Its Co. Ordinator and Others

Akash Shamuvel Ghatvisave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tolabai W/O. Raosaheb Dabyakale (C-8012) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sikandar Shaikh Budhan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asha Madhukar Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hemant Kumar Fakira Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others