Criminal Application (APL) No.538 of 2017

16th July, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Shri A.M. KUKDAY
Respondent Counsel: Smt. M.H. DESHMUKH, Shri A.B. MIRZA

Cases Cited:
Neelu Chopra and anr. Vs. Bharti, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 658 (S.C.)=(2009) 10 SCC 184 [Para 10]

JUDGMENT

P. N. DESHMUKH, J. :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This application is filed by applicants for quashing of charge-sheet being Final Report No. 43/2017, which is registered as Regular Criminal Case No.56/2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Manora for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. Respondent no.2 is the complainant. Applicant no.1 is brother of respondent no.2's husband while applicant no.2 is his wife. Applicant no.3 is husband of respondent no.4, who is sister of respondent no.2.

4. Shri Kukday, learned Counsel for applicants, has submitted that the report dated 12/6/2016, on the basis of which offences as aforesaid came to be registered and the documents filed with the charge-sheet do not make out any case against applicants muchless for the offences registered against them as from the report and statements of complainant and other witnesses, mainly her parents, except for making general allegations against applicants, there is no specific role attributed to them. It is contended that in view of material available against applicants, there is no purpose in prosecuting them in the present case. It is, therefore, prayed that application be allowed by quashing the aforesaid complaint against applicants.

5. Smt. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1, and Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, have submitted that in view of the complaint as well as statements of witnesses, there is sufficient evidence available against applicants and they along with husband of complainant subjected complainant to cruelty. It is, therefore, contended that since there is sufficient material available against applicants, no case is made out for quashing the complaint.

6. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, we have perused the report. It is revealed that same is lodged against eight persons and applicants are at serial nos.5 to 8 in the report. From the report it is also revealed that respondent no.2 was married to Praveen Rathod on 29/5/2015 at Digras, District Yavatmal and her father had spent Rs.10 lakhs and also given golden ornaments and household articles to her in marriage. After the marriage, she resided along with her husband in a joint family at village Rui Talao, Taluq Digras, District Yavatmal. However, one month thereafter she was subjected to ill-treatment as she was taunted and as such, was given ill-treatment mentally and physically. She was taunted saying that she was not good looking and that her parents had not spent much in the marriage and arrangement during marriage was not satisfactory. Specific allegations are against her husband saying that he had taken loan of Rs.15 lakhs and hand loan of Rs.1 lakh from his relations for purchasing flat at Pune. However, complainant's father had spent less than this amount in marriage. It is further alleged that one month after complainant resided with her husband at Pune, her husband was not looking after her and was addicted to liquor and was not bringing household articles and grocery, etc.

7. As far as present applicants are concerned, only allegation in the report, which we find is that they were intermittently visiting complainant at Pune and were residing for about one month, during which period they used to instigate complainant's husband to ill-treat her. There is no specific act attributed to any of the applicants nor it is mentioned as to on what dates any of the applicants visited the complainant at her house at Pune and which applicant resided with her for about one month as alleged. From the report it is further revealed that after staying at Pune with her husband, complainant was left by her husband at her matrimonial home at Rui Talao on 1/8/2015 and thereafter in January 2016 she came back to Pune and resided with her husband and again in April 2016, applicants instigated complainant's husband upon which he assaulted her and insisted her to bring Rs.16 lakhs from her father for repaying the loan amount. Similar is the statement of complainant recorded during the course of investigation.

8. Apart from report and statement of respondent no.2/complainant, perusal of statement of her father Uttam Chauhan also does not disclose a single act which can be considered as cruelty or ill-treatment by either of applicants to respondent no.2. His statement does not involve any of the applicants in any manner except for stating that on 11/6/2016 after complainant was brought back by her husband to her parental home, applicants along with complainant's in-laws had come to his house at Aasola Khurd and instead of pacifying the issue, which was by then cropped up between complainant and her husband, demanded the loan amount and the amount spent by them in the marriage and by making such demand, stated to have left his house. Similar are the statements of complainant's mother Sau. Chhaya Chauhan and one neighbour Rohitdas Chauhan.

9. In that view of the matter, in none of the statements, there are any specific allegations made against any of the applicants. The contents of statements and report are of general nature and as such, cannot be considered to be sufficient to proceed against applicants.

10. Having considered the facts involved in the application, reference can usefully be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti {(2009) 10 SCC 184} : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 658 (S.C.)] where in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it is noted :

"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."

11. In view of the evidence as considered and available against applicants, thus the main question which would fall for consideration is whether same is sufficient to proceed against applicants or this Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the complaint.

12. The issue is by now well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of High Court's powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and has noted that every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. Inherent power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised :

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of Court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

In view of law laid down as aforesaid and when limited material, which is also in the form of vague allegations against applicants is considered, we find that to continue prosecution against applicants would amount to abuse of process of law.

13. We have carefully considered the averments in the report and statements of the material witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and filed along with the charge-sheet. We reiterate that there is no specific allegation against applicants in any of these documents inasmuch as neither complainant nor her parents or even the independent witnesses have alleged any role or specific act against applicants.

14. In view of the facts as aforesaid, when same are considered in the background of legal provisions set out in the earlier paragraphs, we do not find it proper to proceed against applicants for the offences for which they are charge-sheeted. In the interest of justice, we feel it proper to quash the complaint against applicant nos.1 to 4 only.

15. In the result, criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1) thereof insofar as report is registered against applicant nos.1 to 4 only. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

Application allowed.