SRUSHTY RAHUL SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the complaint / FIR registered as Crime No. 15/2007 with Police Station, Deopur, Dhule for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 r. w. 34 of I. P. C. and further proceedings thereof.

(2.) It is the case of the applicants that applicant no. 1 is a deserted woman, who has been dragged by her husband in the dark without any valid reason. The applicants 2 and 3 are father and mother of the applicant No. 1. Applicant no. 4 is brother of the applicant no. 1 and other applicants are uncles of applicant no. 1. On 21. 3. 2000 the marriage of the applicant no. 1 was solemnised with one Mr. Rahul Shinde and out of the said wedlock, one son namely Jay @ Dhruv was born. On 15. 12. 2006 husband and in-laws of the applicant no. 1 started giving ill-treatment to her. Therefore, she filed a complaint which is registered as Crime No. 166/2006 for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 of I. P. C. against the husband and her in-laws. On 14. 2. 2007 the husband was arrested in connection with the said crime.

(3.) The learned Counsel for applicants submitted that in fact, complaint under Section 498-A and other sections of I. P. C. by respondent no. 2 against the applicants cannot be registered because the ingredients of section 498-A itself are not attracted against the applicants since the applicants are not husband or relatives of the husband of respondent no. 2. The complaint filed by respondent no. 2 is filed to counter blast earlier complaint filed by the applicants against the members of the family for cruel treatment being Crime No. 166/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 of I. P. C. against the husband and in-laws. The said complaint was filed on 24. 9. 2006. He further submitted that the provisions of section 498-A or other sections of I. P. C. which are invoked in the present matter are not attracted since the applicants are not relatives of the husband of respondent no. 2. He further submitted that so far as applicants 2 to 7 are concerned, they are not connected at all with the allegations in the crime. Even, against applicant no. 1 false complaint is filed since earlier complaint was filed by the applicant no. 1 against the husband and in-laws. He further submitted that taking into consideration the arguments advanced by him and the contents of the application, this Court granted interim relief to the applicants on 17. 4. 2007 and since then, the investigation in pursuance to Crime No. 15/2007 is stayed and yet charge-sheet is not filed. He further submitted that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, no offence is made out against the applicants. No further proceedings can go on, on the basis of such allegations, there is no basis for such allegations in law and, therefore, relying on reported judgment of this Court in case of Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane, 2008 2 MhLJ 856, the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that any further proceedings based upon Crime No. 15/2007 will be abuse of process of court and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel took me through the contents of the application and annexures thereto and various statements recorded by the police during investigation and submitted that by any stretch of imagination, the said allegations in the complaint cannot be sustained and any further proceedings would be abuse of process of court.