1 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4566/2010. 1) Satish s/o Arjun Khawal Age: 22 Yrs., occu. Agril. 2) Padmabai w/o Arjun Khawal Age: 41 Yrs., occu. Household; 3) Sambhaji s/o Arjun Khawal, Age: 24 Yrs., occu. Agril. 4) Dwarkabai w/o Laxman Khawal Age: 45 Yrs., occ. Household. 5) Parmeshwar s/o Laxman Khawal Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Agril. 6) Shivaji s/o Laxman Khawal, Age: 24 Yrs., occu. Agril. 7) Rama s/o Asaram Khawal Age:26 Yrs., occu. Aglril. All r/o Patoda (Mav) Tq.Partur, Dist.Jalna. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. Through its Ashti Police Station, Tq. Partur. District Jalna. 2) Godawari w/o Satish Khawal Age: 22 Yrs., occ. Household, R/o Ganga-Savangi, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. - RESPONDENTS (Resp.No.2 is original complainant) 2 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 ***** Mr.Rajendra Nirmal, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. Mr.SR Yadav, Adv. for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. On instructions, learned Counsel for the applicants/accused seeks leave to withdraw the criminal application in so far as it relates to applicant no.1 - Satish s/o Arjun Khawal; applicant no.2 – Padmabai w/o Arjun Khawal and applicant no.3 – Sambhaji s/o Arjun Khawal. Permitted, disposed of as withdrawn to the extent of applicants nos. 1 to 3 referred above. 2) Applicant no.1 – Satish married to Godawari before 1 ½ years. However, the spouse could not sail well, as is evident from the earlier prosecution dated 1st September, 2010, vide Crime No.43/2010 recorded by applicant no. 1- Satish, the husband. 3) It is canvassed that to give counter- blast to the earlier events, in which the applicant no.1/husband was tried to be inflicted with poisonous substance, he was man-handled 3 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 grievously hurt, the subsequent prosecution dated 14.10.2010 (vide Crime No.I-52/2010) is initiated. 4) Taking the report to its logical end and conclusion, it is explicit, the applicant no.4 – Dwarkabai w/o Laxman Khwal; applicant no.5 – Parmeshwar s/o Laxman Khawal; and applicant no.6 – Shivaji Laxman Khawal are distant relatives of the husband/Satish and they are not jointly or otherwise residing in the same house. It is on record, they are from the same village. However, there is nothing to demonstrate that these applicants over-powered applicant no.1-Satish or any other family members, including brothers of Satish Sambhaji to discover ways and means to harass the victim, the wife, to ensure fulfill and comply the demand of dowry or the so-called amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of Godawaribai. Sweeping allegations are made against these applicants, primarily it is in order to create pressure to avoid the prosecution in pursuant of Crime No.43/2010 referred above. 5) The learned counsel for the accused/applicants has taken the recourse to the judgment in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors., reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426. to highlight that the parameters, as 4 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 are recorded by the Hon’ble Lordships are fitting in its entirety to the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court gave following seven (7) categories of cases/parameters, by way of illustration, wherein such powers could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The Hon’ble Lordships also made it clear that though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the 5 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing 6 Cri.Appln.No.4566/2010 efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) 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.” 6) Considering the nature of accusations, impression is generated that the F.I.R. against the applicants is couched with malice to wreck vengeance and to absurdly involve them in the feud between the couple. Therefore, the proceedings to the extent of these applicants are quashed and set aside. These observations should not be taken either in favour of the complainant or against the husband and his other relations, whose criminal application is permitted to be withdrawn today. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/