High Court
Legal Reasoning
1criappln No.277-2023IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 20231.Meera W/o. Jayram Kale 2.Rajshri @ Monu W/o. Santosh Ranmode3.Ayodhya W/o. Shivaji Mangade 4.Mahesh S/o. Jayram Kale …. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra2.Ashwini W/o. Rajesh Kale …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bharat G. LondheAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. V.K. KotechaAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A.D. Raut.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 26th February 2025ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.This is an application for quashing the First InformationReport (for short “the F.I.R.”) and charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.02 of2023, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0419 of 2022, registered with Ghansawangi Police Station,Dist. Jalna on 25.11.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 2criappln No.277-2023354, 498-A, 324, 323, 344, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short“the IPC”).2.After hearing both the sides, when this Court expresseddisinclination to grant any relief to applicant No.1/mother-in-law andapplicant No.4/brother-in-law, learned Advocate for the applicantssought withdrawal of the application to the extent of these applicants.Therefore, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn againstapplicant Nos.1 and 4. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 25.11.2022, in which respondent No.2/informantaverred that her marriage was performed before six months with theson of applicant No.1, who is her mother-in-law. Applicant Nos.2 and3 are married sister-in-laws and applicant No.4 is brother-in-law ofthe informant.4.Respondent No.2/informant further averred that, aftermarriage, for about three months, she was treated well. When shewas alone in the house, her father-in-law used to touch her bodyinappropriately with an intention to get close to her. She could notdisclose that fact to her husband because of the pressure and since
Legal Reasoning
3criappln No.277-2023she was recently married. When she was having stomach ache duringmenstrual periods, her husband directed her to go with the father-in-law to the hospital and accordingly, she went with him to thehospital. While coming back from the hospital on a motorcycle, theymet with an accident and she suffered injuries to her head and hand.She was treated in Sanjeevani Hospital at Jalna. Thereafter, she wastaken to her parents house. 5.The informant further averred that, father-in-law spreada false news amongst the relatives that she was pregnant before themarriage. After staying there for two months with her parents, shewent for co-habitation at her matrimonial house i.e. atKaradgaonwadi, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna. Thereafter, herhusband, applicant No.2/mother-in-law and applicant No.3/sister-in-law started to beat her by doubting on her character and expelled herfrom the house. The informant was locked in a bedroom of the housefor about one month by her husband and father-in-law and that time,one Srimant Kale, elder brother-in-law Umesh Kale and brother ofapplicant No.1 Rameshwar Jadhav helped them. She was frequentlyrequesting to have a talk with her father on mobile phone, but shewas not allowed to do so. Both the applicants/sister-in-laws used toharass her by saying to leave that house. Applicant No.4/brother-in- 4criappln No.277-2023law, who is a doctor, was threatening her to administer an injectionand make her unconscious. The father-in-law assaulted her by knife.6.Respondent No.2/informant further averred that theapplicants were confined her in a room. The room was locked. Sheprayed for her release and assured to the applicants that she will notmake a complaint against anybody. She prayed to her father-in-law toallow her to go to her parents house, but she was not allowed and heinflicted knife blow on her left hand and pressed her mouth.Thereafter, on 23.11.2022, she was released on a condition that shehas to give statement as per their say. They threatened her that theywill continue such harassment if she does not give such statement.Therefore, she lodged a report against the applicants and others. 7.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. False allegations aremade against the husband and father-in-law of the informant.Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are married sister-in-laws of the informant andthey are residing with their husband at different places i.e.Ranjaniwadi, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna and Ranjangaon,Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna, respectively. No specific incident is statedwith exact date or period as to when the applicants treated her withcruelty particularly illegal confinement. 5criappln No.277-20238.Learned Advocate for the applicants further submittedthat the false allegations of assault by knife and outraging modesty ofthe informant are made against the father-in-law of the informant. Asfar as the allegations of doubting on the informant’s character andrestraining and confining her are concerned, those are madeparticularly against the husband and father-in-law of the informantand not against these applicants. The allegation of threatening toadminister injection in order to make her unconscious is made againstapplicant No.4 Mahesh, who is a student of a medical college and notagainst applicant Nos.2 and 3. The said allegation is also not specific.He submitted to allow the application of applicant Nos.2 and 3, byquashing the report and charge-sheet.9.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is a strong evidence of crueltyagainst the applicants. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R. Theapplicants treated her with cruelty by doubting on her character,assaulting her by knife, outraging her modesty, etc. and causedphysical and mental cruelty and compelled her to live at parentshouse. There is strong evidence of cruelty against applicant Nos.2 and3. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 6criappln No.277-202310.Learned Advocate Mr. A.D. Raut for respondentNo.2/informant also strongly opposed the application and submittedthat the applicants are involved in the serious crime. They havetreated the informant with cruelty by doubting on her character,confining and restraining her, assaulting her by knife and outragingher modesty. The specific incidents are stated by the informant in thereport. There are statements of witnesses corroborating with theversion of the informant. Names of the applicants are mentioned inthe report. There is a strong evidence against the applicants toproceed further with the trial. In such a fact situation, the applicationdeserves to be rejected as there is a reliable evidence against theapplicants. He prayed to reject the application.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid andAnother Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnlineSC 951; 2023 INSC 683, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court heldthus :-“34….. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone forthe purpose of ascertaining whether the necessaryingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court 7criappln No.277-2023owes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case overand above the averments and, if need be, with due careand circumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 ofthe CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as thematerials collected in the course of investigation….”12.A reference can be made to the judgment in the case ofCBI vs. Aryan Singh, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 379, in whichthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :-“10.As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage ofdischarge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the minitrial.”13.We have perused the report and charge-sheet. On perusalof the F.I.R. and statements of witnesses, who are parents andrelatives of the informant, we found that omnibus and vagueallegations are made against applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are sister-in-laws of the informant, without mentioning any specific incident with 8criappln No.277-2023specific date and time that they treated her with cruelty. ApplicantNos.2 and 3 are residing with their husbands at their marital houses.The informant has nowhere stated in the report as to whenrespondent Nos.2 and 3 came and threatened her to leave hermatrimonial home by doubting on her character and thereby, theytreated her with cruelty. No specific date or time is mentioned in thereport in this regard. Therefore, we find no substance in theallegations made against applicant Nos.2 and 3 that they treated theinformant with cruelty as alleged and she was driven out from thematrimonial home and was compelled to live with her parents.14.The essential ingredients of Sections 354, 498-A, 324,323, 344, 506 of I.P.C. are not establishing against applicant Nos.2and 3, from the report and statements of the witnesses in the charge-sheet.15.In case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inparas 9 and 11 of the judgment, has held as under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, thisCourt again held that where an FIR did not disclose thecommission of an offence without anything being addedor subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR couldbe quashed. 9criappln No.277-202311.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant torefer to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajidand Another v. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder thisCourt, in so far as it is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone forthe purpose of ascertaining whether the necessaryingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosedor not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Courtowes a duty to look into many other attendingcircumstances emerging from record of the case over andabove the averments and, if need be, with due care andcircumspection try to read in between the lines. TheCourt while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need notrestrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empoweredto take into account the overall circumstances leading tothe initiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”16.Thus, after considering the entire matter before thisCourt and law laid down in above cited cases, facts and circumstancesand reasons stated above, if these applicants are compelled to face thetrial, it would certainly be an abuse of process of court. We are,therefore, inclined to allow the application by exercising our inherentpowers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of processof the Court, for quashing the report and charge-sheet filed against 10criappln No.277-2023applicant Nos.2 and 3, as prayed. The application deserves to beallowed. Hence, the following order.ORDERI)The Application is dismissed as withdrawn as against applicant Nos.1 and 4. II)The application stands allowed to the extent of applicant Nos.2 and 3, as follows :-The First Information Report and charge-sheet in R.C.C.No.02 of 2023, pending before the learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna,arising out of Crime bearing No.0419 of 2022,registered with Ghansawangi Police Station, Dist. Jalnaon 25.11.2022, for the offences punishable underSections Sections 354, 498-A, 324, 323, 344, 506 of theIndian Penal Code, 1872 stands quashed and set aside as against applicant No.2 Rajshri @ Monu W/o.Santosh Ranmode and No.3 Ayodhya W/o. ShivajiMangade. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd