AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the First Information Report bearing No. 0476 of 2023 filed by the non-applicant no. 2 for offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the contents of the First Information Report the non-applicant no. 2 filed the report before the non-applicant no. 1. Her marriage with the applicant no. 1 was performed on 10.03.2015. Thereafter, she left to reside in her matrimonial house, she was treated nicely for some days. However, thereafter, Applicant no. 1 doubting her character was habitually checking her mobile phone and was in the surveillance on her. Furthermore, applicant nos. 2 and 3 who happen to be the in-laws were instigating the applicant no. 1. The First Information Report further alleges that on 29.08.2022 the applicant no. 1 abused her and threatened her for life. The non-applicant no. 2 told about the said incident to her brother namely Nikhil Phatekar but the applicants refused the non-applicant no. 2 to accompanying with them. The various efforts made to reconcile the matter therefore, lodging the First Information Report in question. It is this First Information Report which is challenged in the present application on the grounds stated therein.
We have heard Mr. S.M. Vaishnav learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. A.J. Gohokar, learned APP for non-applicant no. 1/State and Mr. V.B. Bhise for non-applicant no. 2.
Mr. S.M. Vaishnav learned counsel for the applicants by taking us to the contents of the First Information Report submits that there are no specific allegations as against the present applicant nos. 2 and 3 and allegations are general, vague and omnibus in nature. It is his submission that even after a meaningful reading of the First Information Report in question, no offence as complained of is made out under the said application. Therefore, prays for quashing of the First Information Report.
Per contra, learned APP while opposing the submissions the learned counsel for the applicants states that there is no specific allegations and the statements are recorded during the investigation. He therefore, states that in view of the fact that there are allegation against all the applicants prays for rejection of the application. Learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 Mr. V. B. Bhise while supporting the contentions advanced by the APP states that the term “cruelty” as contemplated under Section 498A is made out from the allegations in the First Information Report and prays for rejection of the application.
We have perused the First Information Report as well as the investigation papers placed before us by the learned APP. As can be seen from the said papers, there are specific allegations against the applicant no. 1 husband who is the main perpetrator. However, the allegations concerning to applicant nos. 2 to 3 seem to be vague in nature. Now a days there is flood of matrimonial litigations in the Court whereby the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 has observed in para 30, 32 and 34 as under:
“30.It has held that “it is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life like of a large number of people of the society.
32.It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
34.Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.”
Furthermore, same view has been reiterated in many judgments like Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State Of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, where in it is observed as under :-
“The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”
In view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are vague and omnibus in nature. We are therefore inclined to allow the application as far as the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
Application is partly allowed.
ii) First Information Report bearing No. 0476 of 2023 against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. applicant no. 2 - Arvind Wamanrao Verulkar and applicant no. 3 - Minakshi Arvind Verulkar is quashed and set aside.
iii) However, the prosecution is continue as far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned.
iv) Application is partly allowed and disposed of in above said terms.