High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran253.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 253 OF 20241.Viren s/o Mohan GavhaneAge: 34 Years, Occu. Private Job,(Withdrawn) 2) Mohan s/o Maroti GavhaneAge:62 Years, Occu. Nil3) Dakshata w/o Mohan GavhaneAge: 56 years, Occu. Household4) Chetan s/o Mohan GavhaneAge: 38 years, Occu. Private Job5) Ashwini d/o Mohan GavhaneAge: 32 years, Occu. HouseholdR no. 1 to 5 R/o Plot no. 12 Umred Road, Bande plot Chowk Nagpur. Tq. and Dist.Nagpur 6) Suraj s/o Rajesh ShirpurkarAge: 32 years, Occu. Private Job7) Poonam w/o Suraj ShirpurkarAge: 32 years, Occu. HouseholdR.no. 6 to 7 R/o: Bapu NagarUmred Road, Nagpur.Tq. And Dist. Nagpur 44009....Applicants VERSUS1) The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2) Tejshwini w/o Viren Gavhane Age: 25 Years, Occu. Household,R/o. Sant Namdeo Nagar,Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed...Respondents cran253.24-2- …..Mrs. Surekha G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the applicantsMrs. Rashmi P. Gour, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:2nd APRIL, 2025 O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.The applicants have filed this application under section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for sort Cr.P.C.) forquashing of First Information Report (for short “report”) No. 308 of2023, dated 10.06.2023, registered with Shivajinagar police station,Beed, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 323,498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.2.After hearing both sides for some time, when this Courtexpressed disinclination to allow the application of applicant No.1,Viren s/o Mohan Gavhane, learned advocate for him, on instructions,seeks leave to withdraw his application. Leave granted. Theapplication of applicant No.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3.The informant-respondent No.2 is wife of accused No.1 VirenMohan Gavhane. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are her in-laws. ApplicantNo.4 is brother-in-law and applicant No. 5 and 7 are the sisters-in-law cran253.24-3- of the informant whereas applicant No.6 is husband of applicantNo.7. 4.The informant in her report dated 10.6.2023 averred that shemarried with the son of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 Viren, on 02.12.2019.In the said marriage, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was incurred byher father. After marriage, the informant went for cohabitation withher husband at Nagpur. She was treated well for about two months.During that period, the husband of informant and in-laws were sayingthat her father has not given A.C. in the marriage. Thereafter, herfather, by taking hand loan, sent an amount of Rs.30,000/- in thebank account of appliant No.4, brother-in-law Chetan, for purchasingthe A.C.. 5.The informant further averred in the report that at the end ofFebruary, 2020, the husband of the informant said that he is tired ofwork in private company, he has a plan to start a new business ofsale and purchase of mobile phones and for that, he is in need of ashop/Gala. He therefore, demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- tothe informant and asked her to fetch that amount from her father. Theapplicants and her husband started to harass her. The applicantsone after another used to harass her. The husband of the informantused to come at the house under the influence of liquor and he was cran253.24-4- continuously abusing and beating her. The informant could not bearthat harassment and therefore, she told that fact to the applicant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. her in-laws but they supported the husband of theinformant. The applicant Nos. 6 and 7 were residing near to herhouse. They were interfering in the matrimonial issues of theinformant. They were encouraging the other applicants and husbandof the informant to ill-treat and harass her. Therefore, husband of theinfomrant used to come at home under the influence of liquor andused to beat her. Thereafter, the informant conceived and shedelivered a baby boy on 28.9.2020. At that time, the lock down onaccount of Covid-19 pandamic was going on. Thereafter, on31.12.2020, the husband of the informant made phone call to herfather from a mobile phone of unknown person and demandedRs.20,00,000/-. At that time, a quarrel took place between them. Theinformant filed a complaint under the provisions of Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act 2005, bearing No. 639 of 2021and also lodged the report under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against theapplicants and her husband. The applicants and others filed anapplication No. 1883 of 2021 for quashing of the report in this Court.At that time, the applicants assured her that henceforth, they will notharass her. The compromise took place and report was quashed.6.The informant further averred that again on 14.04.2022 the cran253.24-5- applicants and her husband started to harass her by demandingmoney. They beaten her and abused her and therefore, report waslodged to the police station Nandanvan, Nagpur. She noticed thatbehaviour of the applicants and her husband was not changing. Theapplicants had cut down electricity connection of her house whereshe was residing with her son and husband. She was abused andassaulted by fist and kick blows by the accused. The informantnarrated that incident to her parents by making a phone call to themon 10.7.2022. Hence her father went to Nagpur. On 11.7.2022, thestatement of her father was recorded by Nagpur police but it went invain. 7.After Diwali of 2022, when the informant came back to hermatrimonail home at Nagpur, the applicants questioned her that howdid she come back without money? The applicants threatened her. Aquarrel was resolved by a cousin brother-in-law, Manoj Gavhane.She lodged the report of that incident bearing C.R. No. 2 of 2023.Her water connection on the third floor was also disconnected.Therefore, she lodged the report against the applicants and herhusband. When she was lastly expelled from house on 16.2.2023,she lodged the report in question. 8.Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that no cran253.24-6- specific allegations are made against the applicants in the report. Allallegations are vague, omnibus and general in nature. There is delayin lodging the report. From the charge sheet, it appears that all thewitnesses whose statements are recorded are from the parental sideof the informant. The said statements of the witnesses cannot provethat the harassment and cruelty has been caused to the informant.All these applicants are close relatives of the husband of theinformant and only in order to implicate the entire family and therelatives, the report has been falsely lodged, without cogent evidenceagainst them. She further submits that the applicants have beenfalsely implicated in the crime. Therefore, she prayed to quash thereport as well as the charge sheet.9.Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 State strongly opposedthe application by submitting that the applicants have treated theinformant with cruelty, physically as well as mentally. There wasconsistent demand of Rs.20,00,000/- for opening new mobile shop.The names of the applicants are mentioned in the report. The specificroles by mentioning their names are attributed to each of theapplicants. They cannot be exonerated from the criminal liabilityunder Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It is lastlyprayed to reject the application. cran253.24-7- 10.Learned advocate for respondent No.2-informant submittedthat the applicants have treated the informant with cruelty. Thenames of the applicants are mentioned in the report with specific roleattributed to them in respect of demand of Rs.20,00,000/- for startingof new mobile shop and due to non fulfillment of that demand, theinformant has been harassed frequently by the applicants. Theapplicants have treated the informant with cruelty, which constitutethe offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34of I.P.C. Learned advocate lastly prayed to reject the application. 11.It would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme court in the case of Kim Wansoo Vs. State of UttarPradesh & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 17 , in which theHon’ble Supreme Court, in paras 9 and 11 of the judgment, has heldas under :“9.In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, this Courtagain held that where an FIR did not disclose the commissionof an offence without anything being added or subtracted fromthe recitals thereof, the said FIR could be quashed.11.In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer tothe decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anotherv. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far asit is relevant, held thus :-“34…….. it will not be just enough for the Court tolook into the averments made in the FIR/complaintalone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the cran253.24-8- necessary ingredients to constitute the allegedoffence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatiousproceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into manyother attending circumstances emerging from recordof the case over and above the averments and, ifneed be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercisingits jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC orArticle 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itselfonly to the stage of a case but is empowered to takeinto account the overall circumstances leading to theinitiation/registration of the case as well as materialscollected in the course of investigation…..”12.We have perused the report and the statements of thewitnesses. Most of the facts stated by the witnesses are inconsonance with the report. Those witnesses are her parents andrelatives from parental side. The last incident had occurred at thetime of Diwali of 2022. Thereafter, the informant came to herparents’ house. Her husband or in-laws did not turn to fetch herback, therefore, she went at Nagpur with her father. It is alleged bythe informant that the applicants abused her and threatened to killher by saying that how did she come back to their house withoutmoney and she accordingly lodged the report. A meeting was calledand therefore, on the assurance of treating her properly, she startedto reside with the applicants and her husband. It is alleged that on15.2.2023, her harassment was continued on the part of applicants cran253.24-9- and her husband and therefore, she was asked not to stay there,unless she fetches that amount. She was expelled from the house.This incident, though the informant has stated occurred lastly, thereis no specific allegations against these applicants as to who hasdone particular overt act of alleged cruelty. This shows that vagueand omnibus allegations are made against the applicants. From theallegations of cruelty made by the informant and the statements ofwitnesses, offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506r/w 34 of I.P.C. are not establishing. There is no medical evidence ofalleged injury caused to the informant due to the beating to establishessential ingredients of Section 323 of I.P.C. The vague allegationsof abusing and threatening to the informant, intentionally insultingher, alleged criminal intimidation by giving threat to cause death arenot establishing against the applicants. Thus, on such vague,baseless and omnibus allegations, compelling the applicants to facethe trial, would be an abuse of process of the court. The case ismade out for exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Weare therefore, inclined to allow the application, in the interest ofjustice, to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Hence, thefollowing order:- O R D E R I.The application stands partly allowed.
Legal Reasoning
cran253.24-10- II.The F.I.R. No. 308 of 2023, dated 10.06.2023, registered withShivajinagar police station, Beed, District Beed, for theoffences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 r.w.34 of I.P.C. stands quashed to the extent of applicant Nos. 2 to7. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/