High Court
Legal Reasoning
1APPLN.236.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 20241)Sagar S/o. Purushottam Pariskar,Age 35 Years, Occu. Service,R/o. B.S.N.L. Quarter No. B-5/3, Bhraman Building,Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola2)Laxmi W/o. Purushottam Pariskar,Age 69 Years, Occu. Household,3)Purushottam S/o. Rambhau Pariskar,Age 84 Years, Occu. Nil,Both R/o. Mannas Pimpri, Tq. Sengaon Dist. Hingoli4)Sadanand S/o. Purushottam Pariskar,Age 32 Years, Occu. Service,R/o. S.R.P.F. Camp Group No.12, HingoliKaveri 4/24, Government Quarter, SRPF Campus, Khatkali Bypass, Hingoli Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.… ApplicantsVersus1)The State of Maharashtra,Through Superintendent of Police, Parbhani.2)The Investigation Officer,Police Station, Mondha, ParbhaniTq. & Dist. Parbhani.3)Gayatri W/o. Sagar PariskarAge: 26 years, Occu: Household,R/o.C/o. Professor Janardhan Khadase, (Retired Teacher), Ekta Nagar, Behind Shivalay Building, Risod, Tq. Risod Dist. Washim Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.… Respondents
Legal Reasoning
2APPLN.236.2024.odt...Mr. Dhananjay M. Shinde, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.Mr. Nitin U. Telgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :02nd April, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This is an application under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.150 of 2024 and Charge-Sheet No.389 of2023, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial MagistrateParbhani, District Parbhani, arising out of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.461 of2023, registered with Mondha Police Station, Parbhani, Taluka andDistrict Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort “the IPC”).3 When this Court expressed disinclination to grant anyrelief to applicant No.1, the learned counsel for the applicants, on 3APPLN.236.2024.odtinstructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application of applicant No.1.Leave granted. 4Applicant No.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of theinformant. Applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law of the informant /respondent No.3.5The informant / respondent No.2 averred in the report thatshe married with the son of applicant Nos.2 and 3 on 25th April, 2015.The husband of the informant was serving in the Railway Post Officeas Sorting Officer at Akola. After the marriage, the informant stayed forsome days in the village Mannas Pimpri, Taluka Sengaon, DistrictHingoli. Thereafter, she went to reside with her husband at BSNLQuarter, Karshi Nagar, at Akola. She begotten a daughter Tanvi(Ishwari), who is now six years old. Her in-laws come to visit herfrequently at Akola. After the marriage, she was treated well for aboutone year. After that, her husband started to say to her that “yourparents didn’t give any useful household articles at the time ofmarriage; I don’t like you”. He started to harass her from 25th April,2016. The informant’s in-laws used to say to her that “your parentshad not given any household articles in the marriage. Why are you notbringing those ?” They were saying that her parents had not givenhousehold articles and therefore, they do not like her. They were 4APPLN.236.2024.odtabusing and mentally harassing her. They were instigating herhusband to give divorce to her. They were saying to leave theinformant to her parent’s house. Her husband used to slap her. Theinformant told the said fact of ill-treatment to her parents. Her parentswere saying that they are busy in the treatment of their son Amol Pund,who has undergone kidney surgery. Therefore, the informant has tobear that ill-treatment. 6The informant lastly averred that on 22nd September, 2023,the applicants and her husband again said to her that “your father hadnot given household articles in the marriage and we do not like you”.They beaten her. While expelling her from the house, her husbandslapped her and threatened her by saying, “If you come back here, Iwill not take you in the house”. He left the informant in her parentshouse. Therefore, she lodged the report on 20th November, 2023. 7The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There is no cogent andacceptable evidence against the applicants. There is no specificincident that applicant Nos.2 to 4 caused cruelty to the informant toconstitute the offence of cruelty as per Section 498-A and othersections of IPC. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Mannas Pimpri,Taluka Sengaon, District Hingoli and applicant No.4 is serving in the 5APPLN.236.2024.odtS.R.P.F. He is residing in the Quarter of SRPF Campus, KhatkaliBypass, Hingoli, Taluka and District Hingoli. Vague and omnibusallegations are made against applicant Nos.2 to 4, which are notsustainable. He lastly prayed to allow the application. 8The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. They havecommitted anti-social crime and treated the informant with cruelty. Shelastly prayed to reject the application. 9The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.3also strongly opposed the application and submitted that the names ofthe applicants are mentioned in the report. They treated informant withcruelty. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 10Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the 6APPLN.236.2024.odtpurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”11A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held that as under:-“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”12We have perused the report and the charge-sheet,particularly, the statements of witnesses. The witnesses have mostlystated similar facts to that of the report lodged by the informant. Theapplication of applicant No.1 is withdrawn. Applicant Nos.2 to 4 were 7APPLN.236.2024.odtresiding at Hingoli at the time of alleged incident of cruelty. There is nospecific incident on which each of the applicants treated the informantwith cruelty. General, vague and omnibus allegations are madeagainst applicant Nos.2 to 4 that they treated the informant with cruelty.From the statements of witnesses and the report, the offencepunishable under Section 498-A of the IPC constituting cruelty is notestablishing. 13If all these aspects are considered together with the abovereasons, we are of the view that if the applicants are compelled to facethe trial, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of Court. We aretherefore, inclined to allow the application to the extent of applicantNos.2 to 4 by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process ofthe Court. The application is, therefore deserves to be partly allowedin respect of applicant Nos.2 to 4. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.The application of applicant No.1 stands dismissed aswithdrawn.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.150 of 2024 andCharge-Sheet No.389 of 2023, pending in the Courtof learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbhani, DistrictParbhani, arising out of F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.461 of 8APPLN.236.2024.odt2023, registered with Mondha Police Station,Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,stands quashed and set aside to the extent ofapplicant Nos.2 to 4 only.III.The application stands disposed of. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga