Criminal Application No. 4167 of 2011

4th October, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. SUDARSHAN J. SALUNKE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S.G. NANDEDKAR, Mr. RAVINDRA V. GORE

Cases Cited:
Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. Vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd., 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2159 (S.C.)=2009 DGLS (Cri.) Soft 1282 [Para 6,10]
State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1=AIR 1992 SC 604 [Para 9]
G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. And others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 [Para 9]
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, 2009 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 80=AIR 1960 SC 684 [Para 9]

JUDGMENT

K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. :- Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

3. The matrimonial discord and alleged greed of demand has made Smt. Suvarna to prosecute her husband, in laws, brother-in-law (Pradeep) and husband's sister Archana (applicant No.1). The F.I.R. illustrates demand by the husband, father-in-law, applicants Archana and Pradeep, collectively asking Smt. Suvarna that dowry in the marriage was inadequate and in order to purchase a motor cycle to bring additional booty of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. She was allegedly tortured and ill-treated. This information she has communicated to her parents. She is presently with her parents.

4. In the past, we made efforts to reconcile the couple or to patch up the controversy between the applicants and Suvarna. But mediation failed. Today also we have indicated to that direction but no positive response. The matrimonial distrust has deflated expected harmonious relations and result is prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against Pradeep and sister Archana.

5. Mr. Salunke submits that applicant No.1 Archana is employed at Aurangabad for which he has tendered certificate dated 12.9.2011 issued by her employer. The applicant No.2 Pradeep is permanent employee working in a private limited Company at Ghotawade, Tq. Mulshi, District Pune.

6. Mr. Gore, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Smt. Suvarna says, after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed and let the applicants apply to the learned Judge for discharge. The plea of alibi should not be entertained, as it has been disapproved in the reported judgment by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 DGLS (Cri.) Soft 1282 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2159 (S.C.)].

7. There cannot be a contest on the legal proposition. However, when the matters in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be entertained, the High Court is not denuded of its powers to verify, entertain the documents of impeachable character. If the documents are reliable, the credibility thereof is more vigorously demonstrated. There is no specific denial to the status of the applicants in respect of individual employment, asserted by them in the present application, by the wife barring oral submission of Mr. Gore. At this stage of the matter, we find substance in the independent employment at distant places demonstrated by the applicants

8. Leaving apart this controversy, on analysis of the aforesaid F.I.R. or the final report, unfortunately, the allegations hurled against the applicants are without any specific, particular and individual role they are as vague as they could be. Smt. Suvarna allegedly has turned to parents due to atrocious behaviour on 17.9.2010. The F.I.R. is after 11 months, which also speaks mind set of respondent No.2.

9. The over all survey of the matter illustrates that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1] and also indicated in the matter of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. And others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636. The basic judgment flows in the field is in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 684 : [2009 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 80].

10. Duty of the court is also explained in the matter of Ravindra Kumar, [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2159 (S.C.)] (supra), which we reiterate and reproduce as under:-

"1. Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."

11. The complaint does not disclose any criminal offence perpetuated by the applicants while meeting with respondent No.2 in her matrimonial abode. Consequently, criminal application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

Application allowed.