This criminal writ petition sought to quash an FIR alleging offences of cruelty and intimidation against a husband and his mother. The High Court found the allegations prima facie made out and rejected the plea for quashing.
The petition for quashment of the First Information Report stands rejected.
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.
Sherla V.
7_wp.800.2020.doc
Digitally signed by VISHWANATH VISHWANATH SATYANARAYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SATYANARAYANA SHERLA SHERLA Date: 2021.09.09 CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE 10:11:20 +0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.800 OF 2020
Prashant Jaysingh Kamble & another … Petitioners
Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents
Mr.S.R. Bugade for the Petitioners
Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
1. Heard Mr.Bugade, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petition is preferred to quash the impugned First Information Report No.194 of 2019 registered with Badlapur Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘Penal Code’) a the instance of Respondent No.2, the wife of petitioner No.1 – Prashant Jaysingh Kamble. Petitioner No.2 is the mother of Petitioner NO.1.
Page 1 of 3
7_wp.800.2020.doc
2. Mr.Bugade, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report are in the nature of normal wear and tear of life and do not make out the offences for which the petitioners have been arraigned. Mr.Bugade further submitted that before lodging of the First Information Report, petitioner No.1 had given a complaint to Assistant Police Inspector, Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell, Ulhasnagar, District Thane on 17th July, 2019. However, no action was taken on the said complaint. Our attention was also invited to the conversations between petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 on Whatsapp.
3. We have perused the allegations in the First Information Report. We find it rather difficult to accede to the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that the offences are not prima facie made out. It would be suffice to note that there are allegations of unlawful demand of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and harassment, which apparently fall within the ambit of cruelty as defined under section 498-A of the Penal Code. It is trite that while exercising the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot delve into the veracity and
Page 2 of 3
7_wp.800.2020.doc
correctness of the allegations in the First Information Report. If the offences are prima facie made out, the question of truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is required to be left to be adjudicated at the stage of trial. We are thus not inclined to entertain the petition.
4. The petition stands rejected.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court in the event,after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer files chargesheet.
The observations hereinabove are prima facie in nature
and confined to the question of entertaining the petition. They may not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the matter.
Writ Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(N.J. JAMADAR, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report prima facie makes out the offences of cruelty and intimidation under the Indian Penal Code, thus barring quashinv under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Prashant Jaysingh Kamble
another
State of Maharashtra
another
S.S. Shinde
N.J. Jamadar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
