Govind Vishwanath Mundhe And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.332 OF 2018 Govind Vishwanath Mundhe } Application withdrawn age 30 years, occ. Agriculture } vide Court order r/o Talgaon, Tq. Parali Vainath } dated 01.02.2018 Dist. Beed.

} Radhabai Vishwanath Mundhe age 60 years, occ. Agriculture r/o As above.

Janardhan Shankarrao Mundhe age 73 years, occ. Agriculture r/o as above.

Prajakta Balaji Tambde age 38 years, occ. Household r/o Parali Vainath Dist. Beed.

Jyoti Baban Karad age 40 years, occ. Household r/o Trimurty Niwas, Barshi Raod Near Shrikrushna Mandir Shreenagar Latur.

Sonali Pralhad Phad age 33 years, occ. Household r/o Kanherwadi, Beed.

Applicants

Versus

State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Offcer, Parali City Police Station Taluka Parali Vainath Dist. Beed.

- 2 - Swati Govind Mundhe age 25 years, occ. Household r/o Vidya Nagar, Parali Vainath Dist. Beed.

Respondents Shri Pratik Kothari, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate for the applicants.

Shri K.S. Patil, APP for respondent No. 1.

Shri A.D. Aghav, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : T.V. Nalawade & M.G. Sewlikar, JJ.

DATE : 5th February, 2020.

JUDGMENT : ( PER M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent, heard both sides for fnal disposal. This is an application for quashing of the First Information Report.

The facts leading to this application are that respondent No. 2 married applicant No. 1 on 07.04.2012. Applicant No. 2 is the mother of applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 3 is the cousin father in law

- 3 - of respondent No. 2. Applicants No. 4 to 6 are sisters in law of respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 has alleged in the First Information Report that she was maintained well till 10th January, 2014, thereafter applicants started ill-treating her. They used to pass sarcastic remarks at her. She was also kept without food. For all these reasons, she started staying with her parents since October 2016. When she tried to resume cohabitation with the applicants, applicants refused to take back her in the house and beat her. On 17.04.2017, applicant No. 1 came to her maternal place and subjected her to beating and threatened her. On these allegations, she lodged First Information Report on 18.01.2018 on the basis of which, offence under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the applicants. Application with respect to applicant No. 1 was withdrawn by order dated 01.02.2018.

7.

During the course of argument, when learned counsel for the applicants realised that we are not inclined to grant relief to

- 4 - applicant No. 2, he sought permission to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No. 2. Permission was accorded accordingly. 8.

So far as applicants No. 3 to 6 are concerned, omnibus allegations are made against them to the effect that respondent No. 2 was kept starved. No overt act is attributed against any of these applicants. Therefore, even if these allegations are accepted as true, commission of cognizable offence cannot be said to be made out. Continuation of prosecution against them would be an abuse of process of the Court. The near relatives of the husband are involved in such type of offences. On the basis of these allegations, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence is made out against these applicants. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. Hence, First Information Report against applicants No. 3 to 6 will have to be quashed. Hence the following order :-

ORDER

The proceeding of applicant No. 1 was already disposed of as withdrawn.

The proceeding of applicant No. 2 is disposed of as withdrawn.

- 5 - The proceeding of applicants No. 3 to 6 is allowed.

Relief is granted to applicants No. 3 to 6 only in terms of prayer clause (C) and to that extent the FIR stands quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in those terms.

Criminal Application No. 297 of 2020 fled for permission to produce documents is allowed and disposed of.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( T.V. NALAWADE ) Judge Judge dyb