Deception by wife -when FIR can not be quashed?

Mr.Munde,   learned   Counsel   for   the 
applicant   Dr.Nilima   has   placed   reliance   to   the 
findings   recorded   by   the   learned   Joint   Civil 

Judge,   Senior   Division,     in   HMP   No.149   of   2012 
dated   26.9.2013.     The   findings,   indeed,   are 
twisted by Mr.Munde.     We have read evidence of 
Dr.Mahesh   for   that   purpose.   The   same   do   not 
suggest   in   any   manner   that       Dr.Mahesh,   at   any 
stage   of   matrimonial     proceedings,   accepted   of 
his   earlier   knowledge   of   Dr.Nilima   to   be   a 
chronic   patient   of   diabetes.   On   the   contrary, 
evidence   in   the   cross   examination   suggests   that 
he,   indeed,   made   inquiry   about     character, 
antecedents, health, etc. but that does not mean 
that he had such specific knowledge.

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4038 of 2012
Gajanan s/o Gulabrao Bul,
  
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Dr.Mahesh s/o Madhavrao Mulay,
    
 CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL
AND
   M.T.JOSHI, JJ.
         
   DATE : November 13th, 2013
Citation; 2014 ALLMR(cri) 653

1.
Heard.
2.
Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   and   heard 
forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for 
the parties.
3.
Dr.Mahesh,   respondent,   filed   RTC   No.
263/2012 against his wife Dr.Nilima, her parents 
and close relations based on which FIR vide Crime 
No.9/2012   is   registered,   for   offense   under 
Sections 338, 389, 417, 419, 420, 120­B read with 
Section 34 of IPC.

During   the   course   of   submissions,   Mr. 
4.

Suryawanshi,   on   instructions   of   complainant 
Dr.Mahesh,   has   not   pressed   afore   referred 
criminal case and also the FIR, to the extent of 
original   accused   No.   3   Chanda,   original   accused 
no.4   Hrishikesh,   original   accused   no.5   Hemendra, 
and original accused no.6 Kanchan.  Consequently, 
the   proceedings   qua   original   accused   nos.3   to   6 

5.
are quashed. 
Now,   reverting   to   the   role   played   by 
Smt.   Nilima   or   Gajanan,   we   have,   prima   facie 
material   as   illustrated   in   the   complaint 
petition,   duplicated   in   the   FIR   against   the 
applicant Dr.Nilima and Shri Gajanan.
6.
Inherent   power,   which   is   sought   to   be 
entertained   in   terms   of   Section   482   of   Cr.P.C., 
is,   naturally,   to   be   exercised   to   do   the   right 
and   to   undo   the   wrong   in   the   course   of 
administration of justice.  Reading the complaint 
or   the   FIR   as   a   whole,   it   cannot   be   said, 
primarily, that as a counter blast to prosecution 
initiated   by   Dr.Nilima,   she   or   her   parents   have 
been   harassed,   humiliated   or   persecuted   by 
Dr.Mahesh.       The   basic   theme   of   allegations   is 
deception   while   entering   into   marital   relations 
by Nilima, organized by her father Gajanan.   The 
facts,   cumulatively,   prima   facie,   illustrate   a 
deception,   inviting   provisions   of   Indian   Penal 

Code   to   take   its   recourse.   The   facts   in   FIR 
require   investigation   and,   in   fact,   available 
material   at   this   stage   does   not   warrant   to 
exercise   jurisdiction   under   Section   482   of 
Cr.P.C. 
7.
Mr.Munde,   learned   Counsel   for   the 
applicant   Dr.Nilima   has   placed   reliance   to   the 
findings   recorded   by   the   learned   Joint   Civil 

Judge,   Senior   Division,     in   HMP   No.149   of   2012 
dated   26.9.2013.     The   findings,   indeed,   are 
twisted by Mr.Munde.     We have read evidence of 
Dr.Mahesh   for   that   purpose.   The   same   do   not 
suggest   in   any   manner   that       Dr.Mahesh,   at   any 
stage   of   matrimonial     proceedings,   accepted   of 
his   earlier   knowledge   of   Dr.Nilima   to   be   a 
chronic   patient   of   diabetes.   On   the   contrary, 
evidence   in   the   cross   examination   suggests   that 
he,   indeed,   made   inquiry   about     character, 
antecedents, health, etc. but that does not mean 
that he had such specific knowledge.
8.
So   far   allegations   of   extortion   are 
concerned, learned Judge, during trial, will take 
care for the same.  
   
9.
Our efforts, in past, to avoid bickering 
and   distrust   between   the   couple,   and   to   ensure 
amicable   settlement   between   them,   considering 
their   young   age   and   status   in   the   society,   did 

not yield any result as all such meetings failed.

In the result, Criminal Applications are 
10.
partly allowed to the extent of original accused 
No.   3   Chanda,   original   accused   no.4   Hrishikesh, 
original   accused   no.5   Hemendra,     and   original 
accused no.6 Kanchan.   However, the applications 
are dismissed to the extent of Dr.Nilima and her 
father Gajanan. 

The observations are prima facie in nature.
Earlier interim protection of 72 hours notice 
before   arrest   to   remain  in   force   till   filing   of 
chargesheet. 
  (M.T.JOSHI)
         JUDGE
  


(K.U.CHANDIWAL)
JUDGE

Rule made partly absolute in above terms.

Print Page