Partly allowed

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2019WP/840/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an FIR for dowry harassment filed against them. The court held allegations against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law did not prima facie satisfy Section 498-A elements, quashing proceedings against them. Proceedings against the husband and father-in-law were dismissed, and transfer prayers rejected.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners 3 and 4 for offences under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC quashed. Writ petition against petitioners 1 and 2 dismissed.

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.840 OF 2015

¶3

1. Shree s/o Shankar Deodas Age : 41 years, Occ – Nil R/o Opposite Block No.A/984, Camp No.5, Kailas Colony, Ulhas Nagar, 421 005 District – Thane

¶4

2. Shankar s/o Jagannath Deodas Age : 80 years, Occ - Pensioner R/o Opposite Block No.A/984, Camp No.5, Kailas Colony, Ulhas Nagar, 421 005 District – Thane

¶5

3. Urmila w/o Shankar Deodas Age : 61 years, Occ – Household R/o Opposite Block No.A/984, Camp No.5, Kailas Colony, Ulhas Nagar, 421 005 District – Thane

¶6

4. Navin s/o Shankar Deodas, Age : 39 years, Occ – Service R/o Opposite Block No.A/984, Camp No.5, Kailas Colony, Ulhas Nagar, 421 005 District – Thane

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Ramanand Nagar Police Station, Jalgaon, District – Jalgaon

¶10

2. Smita w/o Shree Deodas Age : 37 years, Occ – Household, R/o. c/o Makrand Madhukar Aher, Opposite State Bank of India,

¶11

criwp840-2015

¶12

¶13

Shri Nagar Colony,
Mahabal Road, Jalgaon
District – Jalgaon

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

Mr. S.N. Suryawanshi, Advocate holding for
Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, Additional Public Prosecutor
(A.P.P.) for respondent No.1/State
Mr. G.A. Nagori, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶16

CORAM :S.S. SHINDE AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :15th JANUARY, 2019
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :5thFEBRUARY, 2019

¶17

JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :

¶18

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶19

consent of learned counsel, appearing for the parties
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) for
the State, heard finally.

¶20

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashment of

¶21

the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case (RCC) No.6 of

¶22

2016, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon and/or transfer of the
said proceeding from the said court to appropriate/

¶23

competent court at Ulhasnagar.

¶24

criwp840-2015

¶25

¶26

3.The proceeding i.e. RCC No.6 of 2016 came to be
initiated pursuant to the First Information Report
(“FIR”, for short), lodged by Sau. Smita Deodas –
Respondent No.2 herein, vide C.R.No.35 of 2015
registered with Police Station, Ramanand Nagar, Jalgaon,
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for
short). Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the first
informant. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-
law, while petitioner No.4 is her brother-in-law. It has
been alleged in the FIR that the petitioners harassed
and illtreated Smita – the first informant in
connection with unlawful demand of dowry. The parents of
Smita paid the petitioners Rs.Two Lakhs twice. Since
Smita did not conceive, the petitioners harassed and
illtreated her and ultimately, turned her out of the
matrimonial house.

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that even if the allegations in the FIR and the
statements of witnesses are taken into consideration as
it is, none of the offences, alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners, are made out. According to
learned counsel, allowing the continuation of the

¶28

criwp840-2015

¶29

¶30

proceeding of RCC No.6 of 2016 would be an abuse of
process of law. Learned counsel would, in the
alternative, submit that the parties last resided at
Ulhasnagar. The parental house of the first informant is
at Nasik. No incident of whatsoever nature took place at
Jalgaon. With a view to harass the petitioners, the FIR

¶31

has been lodged at the Police Station Jalgaon. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged for quashment of the
proceeding of RCC No. 6 of 2016 and/or transfer of the
same to the competent court at Ulhasnagar.

¶32

5.Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel,

¶33

representing the first informant (respondent No.2)
would, on the other hand, submit that the allegations in
the FIR undoubtedly make out the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC against
the petitioners. The averments in the FIR get reinforced
by the statements of the persons acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case. According to
learned counsel, the first informant had preferred an
application to the Women's Vigilance Cell at Jalgaon.

¶34

The husband and the father-in-law of the first informant
would attend the proceedings before Women's Vigilance
Cell. During their those visits to Jalgaon, they had

¶35

5 criwp840-2015

¶36

asked the first informant to bring Rs.Ten Lakhs from her

¶37

parents as a condition to get her back to her
matrimonial house. Learned counsel meant to say that the
offence was also committed within the limits of the
court at Jalgaon. Learned counsel and learned A.P.P.

¶38

ultimately urged for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

LEGAL PROPOSITION

¶40

6.In the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another
Vs. Monica and others (2004)3 SCC 383, the Hon'ble

¶41

Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶42

“The facts, as alleged, will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial. The appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition 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. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused. Once the aforesaid stage is overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the complaint/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with the offence.”

¶43

criwp840-2015

¶44

¶45

7. Before adverting to the averments in the FIR

¶46

and the statements of the persons acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to
have a glance at the provisions of Section 498-A of the
IPC. Section 498-A reads as under:

¶47

“498-A.Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine.

¶48

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

¶49

(a)any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶50

(b)harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such
demand.”

¶51

8.It would be crystal clear from the meaning of

¶52

the word “cruelty” given herein above that it should be

¶53

a willful conduct on the part of the husband or his
relatives, which is likely to drive the woman to commit

¶54

7 criwp840-2015

¶55

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health of such woman. Or harassment of the woman, has
to be with a view to coerce her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property.

¶56

9.The allegations in the FIR are –

¶57

The marriage of the first informant with

¶58

petitioner No.1 took place on 16th June, 2006 at Nasik.
The petitioners and their relatives were duly honoured
in the marriage. The first informant started residing,
along with petitioners, at her matrimonial house, at
Ulhasnagar. The petitioners treated her well for initial
some days. Thereafter, they started harassing her on
petty issues. Petitioner No.1, the husband, is in
service with a Private Company. It is alleged in the FIR
that the husband (petitioner No.1) would physically and
mentally harass the first informant on the ground that

¶59

her parents did not pay him adequate dowry. Since the

¶60

first informant did not conceive, the petitioners
illtreated her. They would taunt her to be infertile.

¶61

They asked her to give divorce to petitioner No.1. Since
the first informant had desire to continue her marital

¶62

tie, she preferred an application to the Women's
Vigilance Cell at Jalgaon. Her husband (petitioner No.1)

¶63

criwp840-2015

¶64

¶65

and father-in-law (petitioner No.2) would attend the

¶66

said proceeding. Instead of taking her back to the
matrimonial home/house, both of them repeatedly asked
her to fetch Rs.Ten Lakhs from her parents as a
condition to get her back. It has further been alleged
in the FIR that with a view to see the first informant

¶67

happy at her matrimonial home, her parents had paid the

¶68

petitioners Rs.Two Lakhs twice, but in vain. The
brother-in-law (petitioner No.4) had repeatedly asked

¶69

the first informant to sign the divorce papers. The

¶70

first informant again preferred an application to the

¶71

Women's Vigilance Cell at Jalgaon. The petitioners do
not turn up before the said Cell. The first informant
was, therefore, left with no option but to file the FIR.

¶72

10.The statements of the persons, acquainted with

¶73

the facts and circumstances of the case, are more or
less similar to that of the allegations in the FIR.
Close scrutiny of these papers would undoubtedly
indicate that none of the ingredients of the term
“cruelty”, appearing in Section 498-A of the IPC, get
attracted against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-

¶74

law (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 respectively) of the first
informant. The allegation that the parents of the first

¶75

9 criwp840-2015

¶76

informant paid Rs.Two Lakhs to her husband, father-in-

¶77

law and brother-in-law (petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4,
respectively) is general in nature. The FIR and the
proceedings of RCC No.6 of 2016, initiated pursuant
thereto are, therefore, liable to be quashed so far as
petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. So far as
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, the allegations in
the FIR and the statements of witnesses do prima facie
make out a case to proceed against them for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the
IPC.

¶78

11. As regards transfer of proceeding from the

¶79

Court, at Jalgaon to the Court, at Ulhasnagar, it is to
be stated that the averments in the FIR are to the

¶80

effect that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 would attend the
proceedings before the Women's Vigilance Cell at Jalgaon
and after such proceedings, they had asked the first

¶81

informant to fetch Rs.Ten Lakhs from her parents as a
condition to take her back to matrimonial home/house. We
have to go by the averments in the FIR as they are. The
allegations in the FIR suggest that the alleged offence,
in its continuation, did take place at Jalgaon as well.
The court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon

¶82

criwp840-2015

¶83

¶84

has, therefore, jurisdiction to enquire into and try the
alleged offence. The prayer for transfer of the criminal
case i.e. RCC No. 6 of 2016, therefore, cannot be
acceded to.

¶85

12.We are conscious of the fact that the

¶86

petitioners are residing at Ulhasnagar. The parental
home/house of the first informant is at Nasik. After

¶87

her stay at Nasik, she started residing at her brother's

¶88

home/house, at Jalgaon. It would be a great
inconvenience for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to travel
from Ulhasnagar to Jalgaon for attending the Court
proceedings. We are, therefore, of the view that the
court concerned would consider the application, if any
that may be preferred by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2,
seeking exemption from personally appearing before the
court, before framing of the charge and/or during
hearing of the case.

¶89

13.For the reasons given herein above, the writ
petition partly succeeds.

¶90

14. In the result, we pass the following order:-

¶91

(a) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶92

11 criwp840-2015

¶93

(b)The proceeding i.e. Regular Criminal Case (RCC)
No.6 of 2016, pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon, instituted
pursuant to the First Information Report i.e.
C.R.No.35 of 2015 registered with Police
Station, Ramanand Nagar, Jalgaon, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as
against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, is hereby
quashed.

¶94

(c)So far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are
concerned, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶95

(d)The Rule is made partly absolute in the above
terms.

¶96

[R.G. AVACHAT][S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGEJUDGE

¶97

npj/criwp840-2015

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree S/O Shankar Deodas and Ors. 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

Dumya @ Lakhan @ Inamdar Shrimant Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dipak S/O. Subhash Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil S/O Vishwanath Pathave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Laxman Ghogardare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul S/O. Daulat Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamal S/O. Mohmmad Shaikh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.