Allowed

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC22 Apr 2024APPLN/221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a private complaint under Sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Finding that the allegations against the in-laws were vague, general, and devoid of merit, the court held that continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Complaint bearing no. MHJG-1300152/2019 and R. C. C. No. 167/2019 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants.

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari and Others Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:9575

¶2

{1}

¶3

11.1-appln-221-2024

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2024

¶6

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari And Others ….Applicants

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra And Another …..Respondents

¶9

Ms. Ansari Asfia Nuzhat, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, APP for Respondents No. 1 Mr. S.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶10

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶11

DATE : 22^nd APRIL, 2024

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This application filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of complaint bearing MHJG1300152/2019 and R.C.C. No. 167/2019, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopada, District- Jalgaon.

¶14

Applicants No. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and motherin-law of respondent No. 2, applicant No. 3 is brother-in-law, applicant No. 4 is his wife, applicant No. 5 is sister-in-law and applicant No. 6 is her husband, against whom respondent No. 2 filed complaint under section 498-A, 405, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34

¶15

of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶16

Bhagyawant Punde

¶17

{2} 11.1-appln-221-2024

¶18

The second respondent married with elder son of applicants No. 1 and 2 namely Nilesh, in the year 2009 and two sons are born out of the wedlock. Marital life went sour and respondent No. 2 filed PWDV Application No. 26/2019 under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is decided on 16.12.2019, thereby awarding an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards monthly maintenance and Rs. 1500/- by way of rent to respondent No. 2. Same was challenged by huband-Nilesh in PWDV Appeal No. 3/2022, which was allowed by District Court and matter is remanded back to the Trial Court.

¶19

Nilesh filed proceeding under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 09.02.2023.

¶20

It is the case of applicants that after marriage in the year 2009, respondent No. 2 stayed with them only for a period of five months. Thereafter, since Nilesh lost his job at Jalgaon, he along with respondent No. 2 went to Pune in search of job. At Pune, respondent No. 2 got job of Assistant Teacher in the year 2011 in a private school. Since 2016, respondent No. 2 is serving in a public school at Pune.

¶21

Bhagyawant Punde

¶22

{3} 11.1-appln-221-2024

¶23

Perusal of complaint reveals that respondent No. 2 has specifically averred that initially she stayed with applicants No. 1 and 2 at Jalgaon and thereafter she along with husbandNilesh shifted to Pune. Allegations of ill treatment and harassment are mainly made against husband and vague and geneal allegations are leveled against applicants.

¶24

It is thus clear that respondent No. 2 resided with applicants initially only for a period of five to six months. Thereafter, admittedly, she shifted to Pune along with husbandNilesh. In these facts arraying applicants as accused in private complaint lodged by her is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. Considering vague and general allegations made against applicants, it appears that only with a view to pressurize and harass them, they are implicated in the present case. Continuation of proceedings would cause harassment to applicants who are residing separately from respondent No. 2 at different places.

¶25

8. Decision in Neelu Chopra and Another vs. Bharti ,

¶26

2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693, supports the case of applicants.

¶27

Bhagyawant Punde

¶28

{4} 11.1-appln-221-2024

¶29

In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer

¶30

clause ‘B’.

¶31

Complaint bearing no. MHJG- 1300152/2019 and R. C. C. No. 167/2019 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopada, Dist. Jalgaon, is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of applicants.

¶32

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶33

Bhagyawant Punde

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Murlidhar Choudhari and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Neel Sharad Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Hitendra Walmik Nikam (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalim Nabi Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Gotya @ Dnyaneshwar Shankar Bidve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Goraksh Vishwanath Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Xyz Vs Sajjan Kisan Narheda and Another