1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1992/2010. (Sau. Vidya w/o Anil Gedam Vs. State of Maharashtra thro. PSO PS Sadar, Nagpur and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. M.P. Karia, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the Respondent No.1/State. ----- CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J DATE : JULY 14, 2011 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. bearing No.202/2010 and the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto on 18.09.2010 bearing Complaint No.253/2010, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the applicant that her husband (non- applicant no.2) Anil Shankarrao Gedam is serving as a Police Constable in the Police Department. The applicant had married with non-applicant no.2-Anil Shankarrao Gedam on 19.06.2007 before the Sub Registrar i.e. Marriage Office at Nagpur. It is the grievance of the applicant that non-applicant no.2 is addicted to liquor and he started to give ill-treatment to the applicant 2 physically as well as mentally on the pretext of bringing the dowry. The applicant tolerated all the torture given by her husband. She lodged complaint with Ganeshpeth Police Station, Nagpur against her husband and Sunita Tikaram Gedam wife of elder brother of her husband. The complaint which was lodged on 21.09.2007 shows that her husband used to abuse her in filthy language in the name of her mother, sister and used to demand of Rs.50,000/- and also used to beat her. He was also demanding unnatural sex under the intoxicated condition and upon refusal he used to use filthy language and also used to assault her. It is the case of the applicant that, as a counterblast to this complaint dated 21.09.2007, the non-applicant no.2 lodged F.I.R. No.202/2010 on 15.07.2010 at Sadar Police Station under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. making accusation against the applicant that she had given certificate as to her date of birth (Xerox Copy) when he demanded from her on the ground that her name is to be registered in the ration card. According to non-applicant no.2, there were two Xerox copies purportedly School Leaving Certificate issued by Laxmidevi Dhiran Kanya Vidyalaya, Nagpur, where the date of birth is mentioned as 17.03.1971 in one copy while 17.03.1975 is mentioned in another copy. It is the case of the applicant that, on the basis of those xerox copies, non-applicant no.2 lodged 3 offence of cheating and forgery against him and made complaint which is subject matter of the main criminal proceedings. The applicant also submitted that her elder sister Atiti Pendram was born on 17.03.1975. That being so, the applicant could not have been born on 17.03.1975 and therefore, there was no question of cheating her husband by showing him xerox copy of School Leaving Certificate mentioning 17.03.1975 as her date of birth. Under these circumstances the applicant has contended that the main F.I.R. and the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed as there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cheat her husband nor she had concealed the photo-state/xerox copy from her husband. According to her husband, he had asked xerox copy from her in order to make an entry in the ration card and she had handed over the copies which she was possessing. Thus, according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, there was no question of cheating or forgery, but, the non-applicant no.2, who was facing prosecution earlier as a result of complaint made by the applicant against him since 21.09.2007 as also the proceedings for maintenance in the Family Court, chose to adopt vengeance attitude with a view to harass the applicant and also chose to file a complaint lodging offence of cheating. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the allegations made by the non-applicant no.2 did not indicate any intentional 4 deception in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, he relied upon the ruling in Bhajanlal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1992 (Suplm.) SCC 335, with a prayer to quash the main proceedings. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant no.2 by his application submitted that the applicant has deceived her husband as to her correct date of birth and therefore, he had lodged complaint with the police after finding that his wife had produced two xerox copies in respect of date of birth which is mentioned as 17.03.1971 and 17.03.1975, purportedly issued by the same school. On behalf of non-applicant no.1/State, it is contended that the first informant Anil Shankarrao Gedam had lodged complaint stating that his wife had cheated him showing her date of birth as 17.03.1975 alleging forgery in the School Leaving Certificate by changing the date from 17.03.1971 to 17.03.1975. It is further contended that, during the course of investigation, information was obtained from Laxmidevi Dhiran Kanya Vidyalaya, Nagpur, and it is informed by the said School that the date of birth of applicant is 17.03.971 and not 17.03.1975. Even according to applicant, in para 13 of the application, it is mentioned that her elder sister namely Atiti Pendram was born on 07.03.1975 which makes it impossible to 5 believe that the applicant was born on 17.03.1975. Thus, the date of birth mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate mostly corrected 17.03.1971, looking to the nature of matrimonial dispute between the applicant and non-applicant no.2, the complaint filed by the applicant against her husband making serious accusation on 21.09.2007, maintenance proceedings started by her against her husband under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court earlier to the complaint lodged by non-applicant no.2 bearing F.I.R. No.202/2010 dated 15.07.2010, I think that there is nothing to believe from the prima facie allegations levelled to indicate intentional deception actionable under Section 415. The proceedings seems to have been instituted due to personal grudge. Such proceedings would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the application is allowed. The main proceedings initiated in Crime No.202/2010 pending before J.M.F.C. Court No. 6, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside. JUDGE NSN