AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@Judgmenttag-Judgment
Swapna Joshi, J
[1] By consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
[2] The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the First
Information Report bearing No.427/2017, dated 18.07.2017 filed by respondent no.2 at Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
[3] The factual matrix of the case is that respondent no.2-complainant Smt. Antara Nilesh Sheshkar had lodged a complaint on 19.09.2016 with Police
Station, Juni Kamptee alleging that respondent no.2 was having love affairs with one Nilesh Wasudeo Sheshkar and on the pretext of promise to
marry with respondent no.2, physical relations were established between them. However, when respondent no.2 asked Nilesh to marry with her, he
refused to perform marriage, therefore, she lodged a complaint against Nilesh for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, on 2.12.2016, Nilesh performed the marriage with respondent no.2 at Bouddha Vihar, Khairi, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. Respondent no.2
then went to cohabit with Nilesh and her in-laws. Nilesh was serving in Indian Army. He used to visit his wife-respondent no.2 oftenly. Nilesh used to
come on leave on five days at Nagpur and thereafter he used to return to his work place. It is the case of the complainant that her in-laws i.e. the
applicants herein used to harass her as to why the articles were brought by her, instead of that cash amount should have been brought towards the
dowry from her father. The applicants used to humiliate her and ill-treat her on that count. The complaint shows that the complainant started residing
separately from her in-laws from 31.3.2017 i.e. soon after her marriage. It further shows that as the rape case was lodged by the complainant prior to
her marriage against Nilesh, in July-2017 her in-laws harassed her to withdraw the complaint lodged by her prior to her marriage. Therefore the
complainant went under depression and she consumed insecticide i.e. all-out liquid. In the circumstances, the complainant lodged the present complaint
on 18.7.2017.
[4] Learned advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that no offence is made out even if the allegations in the first information report and in the
statements of the witnesses are accepted at their face value. It is stated that the registration of the impugned first information report is skillful effort of
respondent no.2 to rope the applicants in criminal case in order to pressure and compel to bring respondent no.2 at her husband's service place. It is
contended that the husband of respondent no.2 is in Indian Army and there is no government accommodation to the army serving at Rajouri J & K
and, therefore, respondent no.2 was kept in rented premises in Nagpur separately. However, respondent no.2 has lodged a false complaint against her
in-laws in order to pressurise them.
[5] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the registration of the first information report and preparing the chargesheet against the
applicants. It is submitted that there is no case made out against the applicants to quash the first information report lodged by the complainant.
[6] We have carefully gone through the first information report as well as the statements of the witnesses. However, we find that the ingredients of
Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w 34 are not made out. The entire story narrated by the complainant does not attract the aforementioned provisions.
There are no specific allegations made against any of the applicants. The contents of the statements and the report are of general nature and as such
cannot be considered to be sufficient to proceed against the applicants. There is no specific act attributed to any of the applicants. The allegations in
the complaint appears to be vague and general in nature.
[7] In this context, a usual reference in the case of Neelu Chopra and another .vs. Bharti, reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 658 (S.C.) can be made.
Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment are noted as under :
“(9) In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not the be all and end all of the
matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role
played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.
(10) When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the
exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against
him more precisely, but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the
prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent
about the precise acts of the appellants.â€
[8] In the case of Preeti Gupta and another .vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it is held that :
(B) “No specific allegation made against appellants in complaint, and none of the witnesses attributing any role to them. Their implication was only
meant to harass and humiliate husband's relatives. Permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law. Hence, complaint
against appellants quashed. Courts cautioned to scrutinise such vexatious and frivolous complaints with great care and circumspection.â€
It is also held in para 24 as under :
“24. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, this Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise
of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
[9] Thus, the allegations made in the first information report as well as in the statements of the witnesses found in the chargesheet at their face value
do not in any manner indicate that the applicants ill-treated the complainant. Thus the chargesheet does not disclose essential ingredients of the
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against the
applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order :
[1] Criminal Application [APL] No.575/2017 is allowed.
[2] The First Information Report registered vide F.I.R. No.427/2017 filed by respondent no.2 against the applicants at Police Station, Gittikhadan,
Nagpur as well as chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the further
proceedings emanating from the said First Information Report are hereby quashed and set aside.