Criminal Appeal No.900 of 2018

13th July, 2018.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. AMOL NIRMALKUMAR SURYAWANSHI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. ANAND LONDGE, for Mr. NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR, Ms. NIDHI

Cases Cited:
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1=(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 [Para 6]
Vineet Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 850=(2017) 13 SCC 369 [Para 6]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Application (APL) No. 617 of 2016, wherein the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the second respondent and the appellant married in the Year 2011 at Nanded, Maharashtra. According to the second respondent/wife, she was subjected to ill-treatment on account of demand of money at the instance of the appellant and his family members; a First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station Aarni, District Yavatmal and the same came to be registered for the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was questioned by the appellant herein alongwith other accused/ family members of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the proceedings. Initially the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, granted interim order staying the investigation based on the First Information Report filed by the second respondent. However, after hearing, the petition came to be dismissed so far as appellant is concerned. In respect of other accused, the proceedings were quashed. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent no.2 before this Court. Therefore, an Amicus Curiae has been appointed to defend respondent no.2.

4. We are conscious of the restrictions to be exercised by the Court of Law while considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in the matter on hand, we find that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The records prima facie reveal that on 26.08.2015, respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home and did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter. On 02.10.2015, the appellant intimated the Police Station Itwara, Nanded, regarding the aforementioned act of respondent no.2 leaving the matrimonial home on 26.08.2015. Thereafter, another complaint was lodged by the appellant on 13.10.2015 with Police Station Itwara, Nanded making certain allegations against respondent no.2 and informed the police that respondent no.2 may, as a counter blast, lodge a complaint against him and his family members only to give trouble to them. In the said complaint it is specifically mentioned that the appellant's mother is aged about 74 years and his father is 82 years and that his mother is suffering from High Blood Pressure etc. Since, the respondent no.2 did not return to the matrimonial home, thereafter, the appellant herein initiated divorce proceedings on 11.04.2016 before the Family Court, Nanded and the same is pending consideration.

5. Since there was apprehension in the mind of the appellant that the respondent no.2 will abuse the process of law by filing false complaints against him and his family members, he lodged another complaint on 29.07.2016 with the Superintendant of Police, Yavatmal narrating the chronology of events about the callous attitude of respondent no.2 and her family members. As expected by the appellant, a complaint came to be lodged against him and his family members by the second respondent/wife on 01.08.2016 alleging cruelty and dowry demand and the same is questioned by the appellant by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court. It appears to us that the First Information Report lodged by the second respondent is a counter blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the appellant. Initiation of criminal proceedings that too after a period of about ten months from the date of leaving the matrimonial home and about four months from the date of filing of the divorce petition against her, appears to be clearly an afterthought and abuse of the process of law.

6. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1]. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the high court shall not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding. Under category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1] (supra) it is held thus, "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". There cannot be any dispute that the inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is with a purpose and object of advancement of justice. Similar observations are also made by this Court in the case of Vineet Kumar and Others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2017) 13 SCC 369] : [2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 850]. The facts and circumstances of this case clearly attract category no.7 as quoted supra. The High Court did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case while rejecting the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. We find that the allegations against the appellant are bald and vague and as aforementioned, afterthought. Since the matrimonial matter is pending consideration before the Family Court, it is open to the parties to pursue their remedies before the said court. We do not find any reason to allow to continue with the criminal proceedings based on the material on record and in the circumstances of the case. The proceedings in Crime No. 383/2016 registered with Police Station Aarni, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra, thus stand quashed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Appeal allowed.