Girish S/o Upendra Karhade vs The State of Maharashtra

S.S. Shinde, J. (Oral)—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, on instructions, submits that, he will not press present application qua applicant no.1 � Girish S/o Upendra Karhade. Hence the application in respect of applicant no.1 Girish S/o Upendra Karhade stands rejected as not pressed.

This application is filed with the following prayers :

"C. To quash and set aside the further proceeding of FIR/Crime bearing No.344/2016 registered at Police Station, Cidco, N-7, Aurangabad dated 18.05.2016 for the offence U/Sec. 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C. filed by respondent no.2. C-1 This Hon''ble Court may kindly be quashed and set aside the impugned charge-sheet No.293/2016 dated 18.07.2016, which is pending before the Ld. 15th J.M.F.C. Aurangabad in R.C.C. No.1837/2016 and accordingly pending trial bearing R.C.C. No.1837/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that applicant nos.2 to 7 are residing at different places than the matrimonial home. He submits that applicant no.2 is the mother of applicant no.1 Girish i.e. husband of respondent no.2. He further states that, immediately after the marriage, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 shifted to Aurangabad and are residing at Aurangabad. He further submits that applicant no.3 is residing at Solapur, applicant no.4 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, applicant no.5 is residing at Solapur, applicant no.6 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad and applicant no.7 is residing at Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune. All these places, where applicant nos.2 to 7 are residing are more than 225 Kms. away from Aurangabad. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in F.I.R. are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, ingredients of the alleged offences so far as applicant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, are not attracted. Therefore, keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604, this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and also charge-sheet deserve to be quashed.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites our attention to the allegations in F.I.R., supplementary statement of respondent no.2 and the statements of other witnesses and submits that the ingredients of the offences have been clearly disclosed, and therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 (3) Supreme 233 and also in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica and other, (2014) 3 SCC 383, the appreciation even in a summery manner, of the averments made in a complaint or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it.

We have carefully perused the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. With their able assistance, we have perused the allegations in the F.I.R., supplementary statement of respondent no.2 and the statements of other witnesses. So far as applicant nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, the allegations against them in the F.I.R. are as under :"

"(i) R;kuarj ek>s irh ukes 1- fxjh"k misUnz d&gkMs] jk0 xkj[ksMk ifjlj] 2- lklq fon;k misUnz d&gkMs] jk0 fiaijh fpapoM iq.ks] 3- uaun izfrHkk izdk''k fnokuth] jk0 olar fogkj iq.ks jksM+] lksGkiqj] 4- u.kan vkjrh misUnz d&gkMs] jk0 fiaijh fpapoM] iq.ks] 5- uanbZ izdk''k fnokuth] jk0 olar fogkj iq.ks jksM+] lksGkiqj] 6- izf.krk misUnz d&gkMs] jk0 iq.ks] 7- misUnz fo".kqiar d&gkMs] jk0 fiaijh fpapoM] iq.ks vls usgeh eGk ojhG loZ eaMGh ;kauh v/kqu e/kqu vkSjaxkckn ;sFks izR;{k ;smu lrr eGk osGksosGh ekufld o ''kkjhfjd =kl ns.;kl lq:okr dsGh o eGk eqb;k ekgs:u iS''ks ?ksoqu ;s tk vls Eg.kqu usgeh ekufld ''kkjhfjd =kl nsr vlr0 R;kuarj fn0 12-09-2014 Gk ek>s irh ukes fxjh"k ;kauh ek>s lklq ukes fo|kckbZ fgps lkax.kso:u eGk ngk :i;s pk DokbZu pksjGk vlk vkjksi Gkoqu eGk ekgsjh ,u&11] gMdks ;sFks vk.kqu lkMs Gs o f''kohxkG dsGh0 rsOgkiklqu rs vkt fn0 18-05-2016 i;Zar eh ekgsjh ,u&11] gMdks ;sFks jkgr vkgs0

(ii) eGk ojhG loZ eaMGh lrr eGk osGksosGh ekufld o ''kkjhfjd NG d:u =kl fnGsGk vlqu R;kP;kfo:) dk;ns''khj dk;Zokgh djkoh o eGk U;k; feGoqu n;kok gh fouarh0

Apart from the afore stated allegations in the F.I.R., we have also carefully perused supplementary statement of the informant. The said statement is recorded immediately on the next day i.e. on 17.05.2016. When the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2, respondent no.2 has not placed anything on record what prevented her from making allegations made in the supplementary statement in the F.I.R.

Upon careful perusal of the allegations in the F.I.R., there are no specific overt acts attributed qua applicant nos.5 to 7, though there is foul on the part of informant to rope in applicant no.2 Vidya Upendra Karhade, who is mother-in-law of respondent no.2, the allegations made against her are inherently improbable. Therefore, keeping in view the allegations in the F.I.R. as against applicant nos. 2 to 7 and the fact that they are residing at a different places, which are having more than 225 Kms. distance from Aurangabad and also the F.I.R. was lodged on 16th May, 2016 belatedly i.e. after more than two and half years from the alleged incident stated in the F.I.R.

The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband''s family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial. In the said judgment, there is also reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein para 12 it is observed thus :

"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ''young'' days in chasing their ''cases'' in different courts."

Therefore, keeping in view the exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana (Supra) and Geeta Mehrotra (supra), we are inclined to quash the F.I.R. and also charge-sheet to the extent of applicant nos.2 to 7. Therefore, the application is partly succeed. Hence the following order :

ORDER

(i) The application of applicant nos.2 to 7 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ''C'' and C1.

(ii) The application so far as applicant no.1 � Girish Upendra Karhade is concerned, the same stands rejected as not pressed.

(iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.2876 of 2016, nothing survives for consideration in Criminal Application no.5915 of 2016 and the same stands disposed of accordingly.