High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

1criappln No.130-2021IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 20211.Sanjay S/o. Parshuram Chavan,Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Private Job, R/o. House No.41 11/11,Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,Nanded. 2.Savita W/o. Parshuram Chavan,Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. House No.41 11/11,Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,Nanded. 3.Parshuram S/o. Kishan Chavan,Age : 68 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o. House No.41 11/11,Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,Nanded. 4.Shrikrishna S/o. Parshuram Chavan,Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Private Service, R/o. House No.41 11/11,Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,Nanded. 5.Jyoti W/o. Shrikrishna Chavan,Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. House No.41 11/11,Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,Nanded. 6.Sangeeta W/o. Dwarkadas Rathod,Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Near Srinivas Hospital, Canol Road, Nanded. 7.Dwarkadas S/o. Vishwanath Rathod,Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Service, 2criappln No.130-2021R/o. Near Srinivas Hospital, Canol Road, Nanded. 8.Bhimrao S/o. Motiram (Premsingh) Rathod,Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Bhavsar Chowk, Nanded.9.Shivkanya W/o. Bhimrao Rathod,Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Bhavsar Chowk, Nanded.10.Sharayu W/o. Sachin Chavan,Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Bhavsar Chowk, Nanded.…. ApplicantsVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Incharge Police Station Officer,Kalamnuri Police Station,Dist. Hingoli.2.Madhurshri W/o. Sanjay Chavhan,Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Nil,R/o. Sai Nagar, Kalamnuri,Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli. …. Respondents....Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Priyanka A. Deshpande h/f Mr. ChetanB. ChaudharyAPP for Respondent No.1-State : Mrs. P.R. Bharaswadkar.…CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.Dated : 01st August 2025 3criappln No.130-2021ORDER [PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] :-1.Heard learned Advocate for the applicants as well aslearned APP for the State.2.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”),for quashing the proceedings in R.C.C. No.406 of 2020, pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamnuri, Dist.Hingoli, arising out of Crime bearing No.0406 of 2020, registeredwith Kalamnuri Police Station, Dist. Hingoli, dated 17.12.2020, forthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referredto as “the IPC”).3.By order dated 20.01.2021, the present application hasbeen dismissed against applicant Nos.1 to 5, for the reasons stated inthe order itself.4.Learned Advocate for the applicants pointed out thereport dated 17.12.2020, in which respondent No.2/informant 4criappln No.130-2021averred that applicant No.6 is her sister-in-law, applicant No.7 is thehusband of applicant No.6, applicant No.8 is uncle of her husband,applicant No.9 is the wife of applicant No.8 and applicant No.10 is acousin sister of her husband.5.The informant further averred in her report that hermarriage was performed with the brother of applicant No.6 on11.06.2015. In her marriage, dowry of Rs.7 Lakhs, ornaments,utensils and other household articles were given. Her father incurredtotal Rs.20 Lakhs for her marriage. Thereafter, she went to CIDCONanded to cohabit with her hsuband. There, her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife were residing underone roof. Initially, she was treated well for six months. Thereafter,they started to demand her to bring Rs.2 Lakhs from her parents. Forthat, they started to harass her physically and mentally. 6.The informant further averred in her report that, on thecount of Rs.2 Lakhs, her husband used to quarrel with her. He wasthrowing his meal dish that informant was serving to him. He wasdoubting her character. He was saying to her that he don't like her,his parents forcibly convinced him to marry her, he wanted to marryhis maternal uncle's daughter i.e. applicant No.10 and give him 5criappln No.130-2021divorce. Under the influence of liquor, he used to beat her. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were quarreling with her for trivial reasons.They were instigating her husband and upon that, he used to beather. 7.The informant further averred in her report that shecame for delivery at her parents house at Kalamnuri. On 30.12.2017,she delivered a son viz. Advik @ Rajvir. The applicants did not eventurn up to see her son. On 21.08.2020, her father and brother went todrop her at Nanded. At that time also, they demanded Rs.2 Lakhs forstarting a hospital. They threatened her and her father that until andunless she brings that amount, don't show her face to them. Theyabused her and her father and drove them out of the house. Sincethen, she is residing with her parents. 8.The informant further averred in her report that, on28.01.2020, some relatives i.e. Bhaurao Rathod, Geeta Rathod,Khushal Jadhav and other reputable persons were called forcompromise, but it went into vain. Thereafter, 11.02.2020, applicantNos.6 to 10 filed divorce proceeding by deceiving her and obtainingher signature. Thereafter, when she realized that she has beencheated, she took back that proceeding. On 24.02.2020, her husband 6criappln No.130-2021came to her parents home and abused her and her parents. Hermother lodged a complaint about the said incident to police station.All the applicants and other co-accused were threatening her,ill-treating her and demanding Rs.20 Lakhs. Therefore, she lodged thereport. 9.Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted thatapplicant Nos.6 to 10 are falsely implicated in the crime. General andvague allegations are made against thesm. Although the specificincidents of cruelty are stated by the informant in the report and bythe witnesses in their statements, the fact of cruelty is not establishedfrom the entire charge-sheet against these applicants. No suchmedical certificate is produced on record to prove the alleged beating.False allegations of cruelty are made against these applicants. Theessential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. are not established against theseapplicants. If they are compelled to face the trial, it would certainly bean abuse of the process of the Court. It is lastly prayed that theapplication may kindly be allowed.10.Learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that there is strong evidence of cruelty 7criappln No.130-2021against applicant Nos.6 to 10. Their names are mentioned in the F.I.R.These applicants treated the informant with cruelty by demanding anamount of Rs.2 Lakhs, for starting a hospital and caused her physicaland mental cruelty. They compelled her to reside at her parentshouse. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 11.Here, it would be relevant to refer the authority in thecase of Disha Kapoor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reportedin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1070, in which the Honourable SupremeCourt in paragraph No.2 held as under:-"2. The learned Single Judge, before whom thepetitioner appeared in person, quashed the proceedingsinitiated relying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhandwhich noted with anguish the rapidly increasingmatrimonial litigations in the country roping in the closerelatives of the husband and even members of theextended family, as in this case, on allegations ofharassment. This requires the Courts to be doublycautious and extremely careful in dealing with suchcomplaints, especially since the ultimate object of justiceis to find out the truth and not only to punish the guiltybut also to protect the innocent. It was also emphasisedthat in the event of the proceedings being found to be anabuse of process of Court, then necessarily the powerunder Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be invoked to securethe ends of justice." 8criappln No.130-202112.We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, thereport and statements of witnesses. 13.It is not the case of the informant that applicant Nos.6 to10 voluntarily caused injury to the informant. There is no material toshow that applicant Nos.6 to 10 intentionally insulted her with intentto provoke breach of peace and caused criminal intimidation to theinformant. 14.On perusal of statements of witnesses, it appears thatgeneral and vague allegations are made against applicant Nos.6 to 10,without specifying their particular role and the particular time withparticular date of the incident of causing harassment to her bydemanding Rs.2 Lakhs. There are serious allegations of demand andharassment against other co-accused, against whom the application isalready dismissed. 15.To establish cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-Aof the IPC, it is necessary to establish its essential ingredients as statedin it that there was a demand for money or dowry, or cruelty that 9criappln No.130-2021drives the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to her life, or mental or physical health. There is no suchmaterial on record to show the overt act of applicant Nos.6 to 10 toestablish cruelty caused by them. The essential ingredients of Sections498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC are not established against them. 16.Considering the facts of the case, law laid down in theauthorities and reasons, we are inclined to exercise our powers underSection 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the report and charge-sheet in theinterest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process of the Courtagainst applicant Nos.6 to 10. The application deserves to be partlyallowed. Hence, the following order.ORDERI)The application is partly allowed. II)The application of applicant Nos.1 to 5 is dismissed byorder dated 20.01.2021. III)The proceedings in R.C.C. No.406 of 2020, pendingbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli, arising out of Crime bearingNo.0406 of 2020, registered with Kalamnuri PoliceStation, Dist. Hingoli, dated 17.12.2020, for the 10criappln No.130-2021offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, stands quashed against applicant Nos.6 to 10only. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] JUDGE[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGEasd