Summary of Judgement

The Judgement

( A.S. Gadkari, J.) :-

1)      Petitioners i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Mrs. Amrapali have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 329 of 2013 dated 7th August 2013, registered with Yerwada Police Station, Pune, under Sections 498A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Respondent No.2 is the father of Mrs. Amrapali (deceased).

2)      Heard Mr. Mali, learned counsel for Petitioners, Mr. Shalgaonkar, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Bhujbal, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2-informant. Perused entire record. Record indicates that, by an Order dated 11th December 2013, Rule and interim relief in favour of the Petitioners was granted. By way of interim relief it was directed that, the chargesheet/final report shall not be filed qua the Petitioners without prior permission of this Court. It was further directed that, the investigation of the crime can continue and chargesheet/report in relation to other accused can be filed.

3)      Record indicates that, the First Information Report is lodged by Respondent No.2. It is the prosecution case that, the marriage of Mrs. Amrapali, i.e. the daughter of Respondent No.2, was solemnized on 6th January 2013 with Gaurav Rajaram Jadhav, i.e. the son of Petitioners. Gaurav Jadhav was addicted to betting and used to bet on I.P.L. cricket match. He used to assault Mrs. Amrapali and taunt her by saying that, ‘she was not lucky for him’. He also used to instigate her to commit suicide. The said fact was informed by Mrs. Amrapali to Respondent No.2 on phone. The Respondent No.2 and his wife therefore went to meet Mrs. Amrapali at her matrimonial house. Mrs. Amrapali informed them that, for the purpose of betting of I.P.L. cricket match, her husband has pledged her golden bangles and other ornaments and when she enquired about it, he assaulted her. On 7th August 2013 at about 10:00 a.m., the Respondent No.2 gave a phone call to his daughter, when she informed him that, her husband is at home and he is in hurry to go for work. At about 11:00 a.m., the Respondent No.2 received a phone call from his close relative who informed that, Mrs. Amrapali has committed suicide by hanging. In this brief premise, present crime is registered.

4)      Minute perusal of F.I.R. clearly indicates that, there is no specific allegation against the Petitioners of abetting suicide of Mrs. Amrapali. Even the allegations of demand of money or pledging the golden ornaments of Mrs. Amrapali are against her husband Gaurav Jadhav. In F.I.R., allegations of general nature are levelled against the Petitioners being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Mrs. Amrapali regarding mental torture and cruelty caused by them. The allegations against the Petitioners are absolutely general in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Qamruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 2309 of 2024 [Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 8712/2023], decided on 29 th April 2024, by following the decisions in the cases of (i) Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and (ii) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022, decided on 8 th February 2022, has held that, vague, general and omnibus allegations against the family members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes is an abuse of process of law. The case in hand is also an example of the same. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the case in hand.

5)      Learned counsel for Petitioners submitted that, as a matter of fact, the principal accused namely Mr. Gaurav Jadhav i.e. husband of Mrs. Amrapali is acquitted by the trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 1st April 2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 527 of 2014. He produced on record a photocopy of the said Judgment and Order. Perusal of the said Judgment indicates that, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. against Gaurav Jadhav. The trial Court has observed that, perusal of record indicates that, the husband i.e. Gaurav Jadhav was loving and caring his wife. That, no evidence of ill treatment or harassment by the husband was brought on record to substantiate the said charges.

5.1)   The allegations against the Petitioners as compared to principal accused Gaurav Jadhav are less serious and as noted earlier are general, omnibus and vague in nature.

6)      In view thereof, we find that, continuation of the proceedings i.e. the investigation of the said C.R. No. 329 of 2013 against the Petitioners will be a sheer abuse of process of law and needs to be quashed.

7)      In view of above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

7.1)   Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.