MEENABAI DEEPAK MAHALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Yagnik, learned counsel APP waives service of notice for respondent no.1-State. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage.

(2.) These three writ petitions have been filed by the husband and his relatives (father, grand-mother, sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner-husband, etc.) under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing C.R. No.57 of 2020 dtd. 25/2/2020 registered for the offenses punishable under Ss. 498-A, 306, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered by respondent no.1 on the complaint made by respondent no.2 being brother of the deceased-Sumitra. Since the issues involved in all these three writ petitions arise out of the common First Information Report (FIR), all the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we propose to deal with Criminal Writ Petition No.105 of 2020 and the facts relating to the said writ petition are discussed for adjudication of the issue raised before the Court.

(3.) Respondent no.2 had three sisters, youngest being Sumitra. On 10/3/2004, Sumitra married petitioner no.1 Mr.Mukund Vijaysingh Pawar according to the Hindu rituals. As per the FIR, it is stated that after two months of marriage, on refusal by Sumitra to hand over the jewellery to her in-laws the relatives of the husband started harassing Sumitra. On a visit by Sumitra to her parental house, she narrated the harassment to respondent no.2 and her family members. Respondent no.2 pacified Sumitra and requested her to go back to her matrimonial house. It is stated in the FIR that on 14/5/2004, Sumitra consumed poison. However, on recovering from the said incident, she refused to return to her matrimonial house. It is stated by respondent no.2 that at the intervention of the senior members of the Society, Sumitra returned to her matrimonial house. However, the harassment of Sumitra continued by the relatives of petitioner no.1. As per the FIR, Sumitra had approached the Police Station and Women Rights Commission by lodging a complaint. However, on a joint meeting by the family members of respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1, the issue was resolved. Respondent no.2 explained to Sumitra that as she has two children and as she is a part of the society, it is better to stay at matrimonial house which was agreed in the year 2006. However, as per the statement in the FIR, it is stated by respondent no.2 that the deceased Sumitra asked her brother not to visit her matrimonial house since her in-laws did not approve the visit. However, there were regular phone calls between respondent no.2 and deceased Sumitra. It is further stated that 8 days prior to 24/2/2020, respondent no.2 made a phone call to Sumitra. At that time, Sumitra stated that she is being harassed more and would like to leave matrimonial house and stay at parental house. Respondent no.2 agreed to permit Sumitra to stay with them. However, on 24/2/2020 at around 10:00 p.m. respondent no.2 received a phone call from one Mr. Jayansingh Morkar who informed him that his sister Sumitra has passed away. Respondent no.2 thereafter at 1:00 a.m. midnight on 25/2/2020 visited the Government Hospital and saw the dead body of her sister. Respondent no.2 further stated that after two months from the date of marriage, petitioner no.1 and his relatives were harassing Sumitra since she refused to hand over the jewellery and they were suspicious about her character. They used to ill-treat her physically. On being tired with this treatment, Sumitra committed suicide by jumping into the well on 24/2/2020.