AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Shinde, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
This Application takes exception to the First Information Report bearing Crime No.174/2016 registered with Beed City Police Station, Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ''IPC'').
The applicant is arrayed as accused no.5 in the First Information Report bearing Crime No.174/2016 (for short ''FIR'') registered with Beed City Police Station. In the said FIR, respondent no.2 i.e. informant, alleged against the applicant that in the month of December, 2015, when the informant was present in the Hospital of her husband viz. Javed Shaikh, the present applicant came to meet him and said that, she has taken divorce from her husband, and the husband of the informant should also take divorce from her, and thereafter, the applicant and husband of the informant can perform the marriage. When the informant asked the applicant how did she know the husband of the informant, the applicant said that, she knew him from the college days. It is further alleged in the said FIR that, when the informant asked her husband at night about his relations with the applicant, the husband beat the informant and asked her to leave the matrimonial home and bring money and four wheeler from her parents. In the afore stated facts, the informant lodged the FIR against the husband and other family members of the husband for the incident which had taken place on 24th December, 2015 and also 22nd May, 2016.
Hence, this Criminal Application for quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.174/2016 registered with Beed City Police Station, Beed.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no relation with the husband of the informant as alleged in the FIR. She is no way connected with the alleged offences. The ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC are not attracted qua the applicant. Therefore, further investigation as against the applicant would be an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel presses into service exposition of law in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and submits that the Criminal Application may be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that, apart from the allegations in the FIR, the statements of various witnesses have been recorded, wherein the present applicant is named and also an overact is attributed against her. Therefore, they submit that the Criminal Application praying for quashing of FIR may be rejected.
We have carefully perused the contents of the FIR. In the context of the grounds raised in this Application, the following portion from the FIR would be relevant:
rlsp lu 2015 P;k fMlsacj efgU;kr eh ekb;k gkWLihVy e/;s vlrkauk MkW0 ''kkbZLrk ''ks[k gh ekb;k irhyk HksV.;klkBh rsFks vkyh o ekb;k irhyk Eg.kkyh dh] eh ekb;k irhdMwu ?kVLQksV ?ksryk vlwu rq i.k rqb;k iRuh dMwu ?kVLQksV ?ksowu ek>s''kh yXu dj vls ekb;k irh''kh rh cksyr vlrkauk R;kaps nks?kkaps cksyus eh ,sdys o R;koj R;k efgysyk eh fopkjys vlrk rhus lkafxrys dh] vkeps tw.ks dkWystiklqu iqohZiklwu laca/k vkgsr vls rh Eg.kkyso:u eh ekb;k irhl fopkj.k dsyh vlrk R;kauh R;kp jk=h eyk pkiVkus o cqD;kus ekjgk.k dsyh o ek>s eqykyk ;sFks lksMwu rq ekgsjh fu?kwu tk o tsOgk iSls o pkjpkdh xkMh ?ksowu ;s''khy rsOgkp ijr ;s vls Eg.kwu eyk ?kjkckgsj grkyk /k:u dk<+ys o ek>h diM;kph cWx vaxkoj Qsdyh o ijr tj ?kjkr vkyhl rj rqyk thos ek:.k Vkdhu v''kh /kedh fnyh ijarq eh ?kjkps ckgsj r''khp mHkh jkfgys dkgh osGkus ek>k eqyxk tkLr jMr vlY;keqGs eyk ekb;k irhus ?kjkr ?ksrys nqljs fno''kh ldkGh ekb;k irhus ekb;k vkbZyk Qksu d:u lkafxrys dh] rqeph eqyxh vkRrkph vkRrk ;sowu ?ksowu tk frph eyk xjt ukgh o eyk fryk ukanok;ps ukgh0
We have also carefully perused the statements of the witnesses wherein it is stated that the husband of the informant viz. Shaikh Javed, has illicit relations with the applicant. No specific date of any incident has been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses. No specific overact is attributed so as to attract the provisions of Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the applicant. There are casual references qua the applicant. The applicant is a medical practitioner. She is residing in Thane District, which is more than 300 kilo meters away from Beed.
The provisions of Section 498A of the IPC cannot be invoked qua the applicant, since the applicant is not a ''relative'' of the husband of the informant. No specific incident or overt act has been attributed against the applicant to disclose, prima facie, the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
In the light of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered view that continuation of the further investigation/proceedings on the basis of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.174/2016 registered with the Beed City Police Station, Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as against the applicant will be abuse of process of law. Hence the First Information Report to the extent of the applicant stands quashed and set aside.
The Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Criminal Application is allowed to the above extent, and the same stands disposed of accordingly.