Solitary incident not sufficient to attract clause (b) of 498a hence fir quashed

Excerpt:. From the report itself, it is clear that the applicants are residing at Wadner. Complainant is residing at Amravati. The incident stated in the report is the only incident. It is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Bombay High Court
Sayyad Rahmat Ali S/O. Sayyad … vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police … on 21 February, 2018
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
                                 1                         apl134.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



              CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.134 OF 2017



  1.Sayyad Rahmat Ali s/o. Sayyad
     Wazir, Aged 72 years, Occ.Nil.

  2.Safura bee w/o. Sayyad Rahmat
     Ali, Aged about 62 years, Occ.
     Household.

  3.Sayyad Aslam s/o. Ali Sayyad
     Rahmat Ali, Aged about 26 years,
     Occ. Agrilst.

     All r/o. Wadner Gangai, Tq.
     Daryapur, Distt. Amravati.           ..........      APPLICANTS



          // VERSUS //



  1.State of Maharashtra,
     Through it's Police Station Incharge,
     Gadage Nagar - Police Station,
     Amravati, Distt. Amravati.



::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2018                   ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 01:47:31 :::
                                      2                                 apl134.17.odt

  2.Aasiya Parveen w/o. Ronak Ali,
     Aged about 40 years, Occ.
     Teacher/Service, r/o.Paradise
     Colony, Amravati, Distt.
     Amravati.                              ..........       RESPONDENTS


  ____________________________________________________________  
                 Mr.R.J.Mirza, Advocate for the Applicants.
                 Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
                Ms Radha M. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
   ____________________________________________________________



                                               CORAM     :  R.K.DESHPANDE 
                                                                    AND
                                                                    M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 21st February, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 lodged report in Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati alleging that her husband was always quarreling with her and abusing her. Her 3 apl134.17.odt husband was peon in the School. In the year 2010, her husband was permanently appointed as a teacher. Since then, he started ill- treating her. On 24.10.2016, at about 4.30 p.m., her husband came to her school and directed her to transfer the house in his name. He was also demanding Rs.5,00,000/-. Her husband threatened her to pronounce talaq.

3. It is alleged in the report that, on 29.10.2016, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law came to Paradise Colony and quarelled with her. They tried to snatch documents of title of her house. They threatened her to give Rs.5,00,000/- else they would beat her in the school at Wathoda.

4. On the basis of report of complainant, Crime No.0927 of 2016 came to be registered against her husband and other applicants.

5. Applicants have prayed to quash the F.I.R. registered against them. It is submitted that they are residing at Wadner. Complainant is residing at Amravati. The main dispute of complainant was with her husband. Applicants are not connected 4 apl134.17.odt with the incident alleged in the report. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition.

6. Heard Mr.R.J.Mirza, learned Counsel for the applicants. He has submitted that the applicants are residing at Wadner. Complainant is residing at Amravati. From the perusal of report, offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Complainant has stated only one incident dt.29.10.2016. To constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, there should be series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b) of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, pointed out decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar Shankar Tawade .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2002 SC 2078. At last, learned Counsel Mr.Mirza, submitted that names of applicants are falsely mentioned in the report only to harass them. Contents of F.I.R. even if taken in it’s entirety, then also offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against them. Hence, the F.I.R. liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Heard Ms H.N.Jaipurkar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent no.1/State. She has supported the action of respondent no.1. Learned Counsel Ms Radha Mishra appearing for respondent no.2 has submitted that complainant has specifically alleged in the report that the applicants along with her husband came to her on 29.10.2016, quarelled with her and tried to snatch the document of her house. Applicants have played role along with her husband and therefore, the application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8. Perused the contents of F.I.R. From perusal of the report lodged by respondent no.2, it is clear that she is residing at Paradise Colony, Gadge Nagar, Amravati. The applicants are residing at Wadner, Tq.Daryapur, District Amravati. Therefore, there is no question of any ill-treatment by the applicants. Respondent no.2 made allegations in the report that, on 29.10.2016, her husband along with applicants came to her house and quarelled with her. They abused her and tried to snatch the documents of her house. They threatened her to beat if she fails to give Rs.5,00,000/-. Except this incident, no other incident is alleged in the report.

6 apl134.17.odt

9. From the report itself, it is clear that the applicants are residing at Wadner. Complainant is residing at Amravati. The incident stated in the report is the only incident. It is not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar Shankar Tawade. vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has held as under :

“18. A faint attempt has been made during the course of submissions that explanation (a) to the Section stands attracted and as such no fault can be attributed to the judgment. This, in our view, is a wholly fallacious approach to the matter by reason of the specific finding of the trial Court and the High Court concurred therewith that the death unfortunately was an accidental death and not suicide. If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of explanation (a) would not arise – neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted. In any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under Section 498-A and not de-hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the 7 apl134.17.odt matter of a charge under Section 498-A. The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b). The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not, however, bring home the charge of Section 498-A against the accused. Acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinabove, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record. “

11. If the face value of report lodged by respondent no.2 is taken in its entirety, then also offence punishable under Section 498- A of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted against the applicants. Hence, in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of Haryana .vs. Bhajan Lal, the F.I.R. registered against the applicants by respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.

                                       8                                 apl134.17.odt




                                      // ORDER //



Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

We hereby quash the First Information Report No.0927/2016, dt.11.12.2016 registered by respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

                                         JUDGE                         JUDGE
   



  [jaiswal]





                                9               apl134.17.odt





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s